"Scooter" Libby Found Guilty
 

two characters

From evidence I've heard, it seems more than likely that the VP is directly involved. Probably Rove too. It's less clear that the President had a direct hand in it.

That will depend entirely on who's speaking, I'll bet.

Politicophile, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of this verdict. While I absolutely agree that there could be secrets of other criminal acts being kept by members of the administration, I don't think that it means that there are those secrets. Libby was convicted of covering up how the truth about Valerie Plame came to light, not actually revealing her CIA employment in the first place. Rove avoided prosecution by coming clean, and it's open knowledge that he was another source of this information for reporters. He wasn't charged because he never lied to the grand jury (or lied enough to annoy the prosecutor). I think its entirely possible that POTUS and VPOTUS decided to leak this information, but no one has ever been accused of that crime.

Libby was already damaged goods when they let the wolves have him. I tend to believe that he has been a scapegoat since day one of his implication and I don't foresee this case going any further. Unless, of course, someone manages to make big news of it putting pressure on the administration to provide more heads. Rove's head on a stick would be some pretty sexy news, I suppose. But it's a pretty tall order this late in the game. Ain't no way in hell the VP is going to go down for something like this. I just don't see it happening.

Here are the facts that the trail brought out.

Libby learned of Plame through the VP.
Libby lied under oath claiming a reporter told him.

So the question is why did Libby feel it necessary to lie about what the VP told him unless he was worried a crime was committed or was told directly from someone higher up to lie.

An additional piece of information is Libby was not the first source as it was Armtage. However, from the lies it appears that Libby believed he was the first source to the reporters.

I dont think it necessarily can be a clear acknowledgement about other criminal activity. I do believe it exposed the dark and deceptive practices of this administration when it comes to defending the Iraq war and attacking those who question or criticize the justification for war.

Libby acknowledged in grand jury testimoney that Bush authorized the "declassification" of portions of an NIE" and sharing it with the press in order to bolster an argument for the war...

Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received "approval from the President through the Vice President" to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to the court papers. Libby was said to have testified that such presidential authorization to disclose classified information was "unique in his recollection," the court papers further said.

Libby also testified that an administration lawyer told him that Bush, by authorizing the disclosure of classified information, had in effect declassified the information. Legal experts disagree on whether the president has the authority to declassify information on his own.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

...while Bush also refused to share the pre-Iraq NIE summary (Presidents Daily Brief - PDB) with the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, claiming that PDB's are for his eyes only.

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.
*snip*
But the Bush administration steadfastly continued to refuse to declassify the President's Summary of the NIE, which in the words of one senior official, is the "one document which illustrates what the president knew and when he knew it." The administration also refused to furnish copies of the paper to congressional intelligence committees.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/58/18106

Like much of what this administration does....its all about Iraq.

Fitzgerald is not going to pursue any further charges, but that doesn't prevent Congress from investigating the involvement of Cheney and others. The details that emerged from the Libby trial might be considered a silver platter of possible impeachment charges.

two characters

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame also filed a civil suit against Cheney, Libby, Rove (and later added Armitage) last summer. (link). Cheney et al asked the Court to dismiss the suit in Nov (link - Cheney arguments and Wilson/Plame response). Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is the lead attorney for Wilson/Plame.(link). The District Court judge hasnt scheduled oral arguments yet.

I dont know that there are potential impeachment charges. Cheney never testified under oath so there are no possible perjury, etc. charges. The only possible avenues for impeachment that I can see would be was if there was a conspiracy to reveal Plame's CIA status at the time (her status was "classified", but not "covert") and/or whether Bush/Cheney had the authority to declassify national security information for the purpose of providing it to the press (as noted in the National Journal article in my post above) or if it was an abuse of power. In any case, I think it would be a terrible idea by the Dems in Congress unless there is a real "smoking gun".

I agree with Dem Congressman Jay Inslee of Bainbridge Island, Wash (Elph..is he your congressman?)

"...all impeachment would do is rally support for George Bush. Among Republicans, it would make him a hero. And it would make it that much harder to end this war."

..."We're trying to get them to vote against the war," Inslee said from Capitol Hill Tuesday. "They're coming around. You don't hear them singing the virtues of George Bush like they used to. But nothing will turn this into a partisan lockdown faster than impeachment."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...5_danny28.html

Yes, thankfully. Others are stuck with Jim McDermott. :)

The Libby trial served as nothing more than a distraction from what should have been the focus years ago. The forged Niger document should come under scrutiny and it is there that an impeachable offense may be found.

George Bush has had many offenses which I view as impeachable.

For instance he swore to honor and uphold the constitution but he has stepped all over it, overstepping his authority.

In addition if it can be shown that he mislead congress and the people of the US by cherry picking evidence or by ignoring/burying evidence that contradicted what he was preaching then he should be impeached.

Dont get me wrong, I think Bush deserves to be impeached and convicted, but impeachment is a legal process that requires evidence that a crime(s) has been committed.

Lying to the American people and Congress is not necesarrily a crime. Relying on a knowlingly forged document is not necessarily a crime. Interpreting the Constitutiion in a manner that takes executive power to levels far beyond any previous President is subject to interpretation and may or may not be a crime. The rendition program and prisoner treatment in Guantanimo appear to be treaty violations and very possible criminal acts under US law as well, but again subject to interpretation.

Clear and compelling evidence is needed, particularly with a Senate that is 51 Dem - 49 Repub and a 2/3 (67) vote is needed for conviction. Until or unless there is a real "smoking gun" with evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", the only result of an impeachment trial will be to further divide the country. What is gained by that?

For the next two years, we just may just have to live with knowledge that Bush (and Cheney) are among the most unethical, disreputable, dishonorable, immoral and unscrupluous persons ever to hold the high office of President (and Vice President). At least there is a Dem congress now to keep them in check and hold them accountable until they slither away, however little satisfaction that provides.

libby is transparently a fall guy. the narrative of administration actions that emerged across this case seems about short-circuiting the possibility of any impeachment proceedings arising from the trial--the proactive declassification in particular. given that as dc says there is nothing obviously actionable to have emerged from the trial--that is nothing that would not involve a dogfight over, say, the authorization process that preceded the leak itself--then i find myself agreeing with dc about this--at least insofar as the plame case is concerned.

libby is transparently the fall guy and it appears that there is nothing to be done.

go democracy.

I don't understand what is meant by Libby being a fall guy. What is the hidden issue that Libby is helping Bush cover up?

I don't think justice was served in this case. There was an opinion piece in the WSJ today saying the message is that people should take the 5th, or say that they don't recall when questioned. I agree that this will discourage people from opening up. Libby did not have to lie about what he was convicted for because the information was leaked from other sources and he talked to other people about it. I don't get it. If we want to investigate Bush and what lead us to war, let's do that. there was no need to convict Libby for what could be a faulty memory while trying to cooperate with an investigation.

I don't understand either. How is this Clinton's fault?

Astrocloud, you are a hoot! :lol:

I did not think justice was being served when Starr was going after Clinton on his private issues. Seems like both were politically motivated.

ace...you can get your "take" on what happened from the WSJ editorial page, LGF, Bozell's "newsbusters", or from news reporting....

I invite you to challenge me on these two points, or....on any other "fact" reported or filed/spoken in court in this national security leak investigation:

1.) The POTUS stated that he was committed to co-operating with the DOJ investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA "operative" (as Bob Novak described her).....to the press, and that anyone who was found in the investigation, to have leaked her name, would not continue to work in "his" (the decider's....) administration. No one working in the Bush admin. was permitted to "take the fifth"....Ari Fleischer did so, only after he resigned.....

2.) The CIA filed a complaint with the DOJ, asking for an investigation to determine who had leaked the name of one of it's employees to the press, so that a determination could be made as to how the security of the classified information regarding the CIA employee was compromised, and reached the press, and then the public. The CIA has a policy of not officially confirming or denying the covert status of it's employees. Former CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, has testified that when he was asked by Bob Novak about the circumstances of Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA, he advised Novak not to publish references to her CIA employment.....

ace....if the CIA approached you and asked you to perform a "mission" for it that involved the risk of you being arrested in the course of carrying out the steps necessary to accomplish the goals of the mission, and the CIA informed you that if, <b>during the mission, or at anytime, afterwards....</b>, you were accused or otherwise held accountable by any third party, for anything having to do with your CIA assigned mission....the CIA would never confirm or deny that you were working for them.....would you, after reading the above Wapo account.....be as inclined to go on the CIA mission, as you would have been if the disclosures made in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, or in Libby's criminal trial, and jury verdict, hadn't happened....had never been disclosed?

You can cite opinions from the WSJ editorial page, to your heart's content, ace.....and throw in some of Victoria Toensing's opinions, too....after all, "she wrote the law".....but none of that, reliably speaks to what happened here...

In a post 9/11 world....in a time when the US is "at war".....a period of "war time" where we are told by the POTUS and his VP that the risks to our country are great enough for the POTUS to unilaterally grab and exercise unprecedented, extra constitutional powers....because, we are "a nation, at war", do you think that the testimony of Mr. Libby, or the evidence of the time and attention that Libby, and his boss, VP Cheney, put into finding out about Valerie Plame's employment status, and spreading that information to others, and to smearing her husband, Joe Wilson, now that what they did is part of an official, criminal court record....made it easier, or more difficult, for the CIA, or any US agency that conducts secret or covert operations....to reassure those who are asked to "serve their country", in a secret or unofficial capacity, to decide to do so, <b>with the same confidence</b> that their identity and classified information related to their employment/duties would be maintained, and protected from public disclosure, by government officials with high level security clearances....in high positions of official responsibility, <b>before Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and Libby's trial and verdict, as they can have now, and going forward?</b>

I ask you to consider, ace....if you "don't understand", because you've let in so much "noise" from opinions like the ones on the WSJ and editorial page, that you've come to believe that a US attorney, Mr. Fitzgerald...an appointee of president Bush, and later, by Ashcroft's #2 at the DOJ, James Comey...to take over the CIA leak investigation, with all of the "power and independence", with regard to that investigation, as if he, himself, was the attorney general.....Fitzgerald.....a prosecutor with an impeccable record on the job, and, in his personal life, a man with a dogged and relentless approach to his job as a prosecutor, with results in his career that speak for themselves, HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG....MADE ANY MISTAKES IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES that James Comey assigned to him.

<h3>If you think Fitzgerald acted improperly, ace.... please post your opinion of what he did that was wrong or improper, given what Libby did and said, in response to questions he was asked, by investigators and by the grand jury.</h3>

Consider, ace....that we are "at war", that the CIA requested an investigation to determine whether a crime was committed, after Novak described that his information that "Wilson's wife", Valerie Plame, was an employed by the CIA, as an "operative", was confirmed by two "senior administration officials".

Consider how Mr. Bush assured us:
......consider that both Mr. Bush and VP Cheney subsequently hired criminal defense attorneys to accompany them when they were questioned about this matter, later, after Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel to oversee the investigation of the CIA leak. Consider that Mr. Cheney did not appear as a witness to defend Libby, a trusted aid he had described recently as:

Host,

I did not follow this trial and really have no interest in doing a lot of research on it. On the surface it appears as if Libby was cooperating with the investigation and after the investigators found no crime was commited, they proceeded to take Libby to court regarding inconsistant statements - that on the surface seem trivial.

If I were asked to go on a CIA mission, I would do it.

If I were being investigated and had to make sworn statements I would either plead the 5th, only make vague statments or say that my memory is not clear on exact details.

I would never make an immunity deal that would lead to someone elses conviction. I would accept the consequences of my actions.

ace, is there anything that special counsel has said that supports your posted comments, quoted above? Is there anything related to Fitzgerald's appointment as special counsel, or in his background that you can post that would support your above comments....would support a premise that Fitzgerald was unfair to Libby or was mistaken by deciding to indict and to prosecute him?

Aren't you comments directly contradicted by the jury verdict in the case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

the key word in the definition as it applies to my opinion is "material". I have not seen or heard the evidence that would support that Libby's statements in question were material.

How am I supposed to prove that without haven reviewed the testimony in detail. Given that I have not done that, my opinion is an opinion and I admit it is superficial. I have also clearly stated my lack of understanding of this issue.

If you have not reviewed the testimony in detail, then your opinion is a superficial opinion or you are regergitating the opinion of others. Have you reviewed the testimony or are you just citing talking points prepared by others, who perhaps have not reviewed all the testimony either?

P.S. Feel free to ignore the question, since it is kind of a trap.

ace the jury determined it was material and I can see why. Lying about where you heard about Plame''s identity to a grand jury that is investigating who leaked Plame's identity is clearly perjury and obstruction of justice regardless if his lie in the future would have lead to who really leaked the information. Every lie causes the prosecutor to spend potentially millions of dollars unraveling the web of lies and chasing false leads. This is definitely material.

But I am curious with your definition including "material" do you think Bill Clinton's lie was material to the Paula Jones case?

Great, so you not only think that Clinton has nothing to do with Libby, you think that he was innocent as well. :lol:

Now that we have that cleared up, explain why neither Bush nor Cheney had the balls to go to court and stand up for their man. It's pretty frickin obvious that as the President -Bush has the right to classify or declassify material as he sees fit. Why do you think that instead of following protocol -first declassifying material and then spilling the beans; they just went out and told the press?

Never used the word "innocent", did I?


I don't see any reason why Bush or Cheney would need to testify.

Just for kicks - let's pretend you are under oath and are asked:

When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame?
Who did you hear it from?
When and where was the first time you used her name in a public forum?
Did you know if she was a covert CIA agent when you first used her name in a public forum?

If you honestly try to answer the questions and are later proven wrong, should you be put at risk to spend up to 25 years in jail? Would that be fair justice?

I did not see how Clinton having sex with Monica Lewinski had anything to do with the incident involving Paula Jones. the question should never have been asked in my opinion.

The ongoing outrage all over the right wing blogs about this case being baseless and/or political is amusing.

The goverment (Fitzgerald) charged Libby with obstruction of justice (impeding the investigation into who leaked Plame's identify) and perjury and making false statements (lying about when he learned about Plame's identify). Libby claimed it was a faulty memory.

The jury heard from witnesses on both sides (Libby chose not to testify on his own behalf or have Cheney testify), reviewed the numerous exhibits presented by Fitzgerald (including e-mails and notes between Libby/Cheney and others, hand-written notes by Cheney on the article written by Joseph Wilson, etc.) AND after long deliberation concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby obstructed the investigation and lied to the Grand Jury and the FBI about what and when he knew about Plame. (Fitzgerald suggested it was in order to protect others - a "cloud over the White House"). If Libby was a fall guy, it was a self-induced fall to protect Cheney. Case closed.

It will be interesting to see what Libby's basis for appeal might be.

In the interim, it will also be interesting to see what might come out in a hearing/investigation in the House Oversight and Govt Reform Committee next week that will focus on the underlying issue of alleged White House disclosure of classified information.

If one uses the logic that a jury made the determination that Libby lied and obstructed justice, and therefore it is true. Then one would be forced into - a jury made the determination that O.J. simpson is not guilty of murder, and therefore it is true. I don't believe we really on to use the argument that because a jury found Libby guilty that he in-fact lied on a material matter.

If you don't believe he lied on a material matter then the burden of proof is on you as there is overwhelming evidence to suggest he did, enough to say that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It should also be stated that the burden of guilt is much higher than the burden of non-guilt thus concluding someone committed an illegal act who was found guilty by a jury is more reasonable then concluding because someone was found not guilty they did not commit an illegal act.

I have no burden to prove anything. Based on the limitied information I have, I formed an opinion. That is all it is. Why are you guys trying to make my opinion something other that what it is, and what I have stated is limited information.

However, I do question the logic being used by you and others. Faulty logic begs to be questioned. I am not trying to be offensive, but it seems that one's political views determine how one sees this issue. It seems true on both sides. Why would it be outside of the realm of possibility that the whole trial was politically motivated?

And, it seems your responce to the questions in post#24 would be to ignore the questions and not cooperate.

Sorry I missed those questions earlier.

I am not sure when I first heard of her name but it was probably in a news article which broke her covert status. When I used her name in a post it was long after her status as covert was broken because it was common knowledge to everyone who reads a news paper. And if i'm wrong should I be arrested and tried? No because i'm not under oath.

Libby was asked under oath where did he here about Plame. He said a reporter. His own notes show he learned it from Cheney.

Was he under oath? Yes
Was that a lie? Yes

Therefore he lied under oath.

Was it material to the case? Yes

Opinions can be wrong. I could have an opinion that the earth was flat but I would be wrong.

I notice that Ace is avoiding many direct questions. Funny I thought only "liberals" did that.

That wasn't the question -the question was "Why was the information leaked?" Feel free to do research and post your sources.

The Bush administration wanted to discredit the report from Plames husband. They wnated him to look like a flunky.

This is where I have a disconnect with you. If you admit that there was a felony committed -then how was was this investigation "Politically Motivated"?

If they DIDN'T INVESTIGATE -That would be "politically motivated".

The fact that the investigation was initiated by the CIA and expanded by the Dept of Justice would be a pretty strong indication that it was not politically motivated, but motivated out of a concern for security.

And the fact that Wilson was a 20+ year career diplomat, under both Bush 41 and Clinton, having served in both Iraq (during the first Gulf war, which he supported) and more recently in Africa, would seem to indicate he had a reasonable level of expertise on both Iraq capabilities and the availability of nuclear materials in Niger.

Again the political motivation was the retribution by the White House against someone who presented reliable information that challenged the White House "war speak." The highest officials in the White House using classified information to make Wilson "look like a flunky" and then a top subordinate lied about it to cover it up....what could be more political than that?

But we've been over this again and again and some will continue to challenge what they dont want to accept...so whats the point of going another round?

This gets to the heart of the issue in host's most recent thread. There is no conspiracy here to mock or "gang rape" (a crude analogy IMO) the opinions of the smaller number Bush supporters who believe the investigation and trial was politically motivated. But for a discussion and debate to have any value, opinions should be supported.

If you think it was politically motivated, offer something (anything!) to back it up. What was the poitical motivation of the CIA to initiate the investigation? What was the political motivation of Ashcroft (the AG at the time) to expand the investigation and appoint Fitzgerald? What was Fitzgerald's political motivation (as a prosecutor who had investigated both Dem and Repub officials in IL)? Why was Wilson's report politically motivated rather than an objective finding of facts?

Anything! If not, dont bitch about being criticized. It is not a personal attack....it is a plea for a more substantial discussion.

An attempt to discredit an individual is not a felony. The Bush administration and specifically Chaney are very politiacally savy. When a political opponent does something the administration does not like, they respond. This is not nor has it been a secret. One of the reasons Bush selected Chaney as VP was because of experience and ability to discredit others.

The only part of this that seems wierd is the fact that so many are surprised by the fact that Plames wife ( oops, I mean Husband), thought he would not have to stand up to a response from the Bush administration. Then he runs and hides behind his wifes skirt. Seems like he did not think his actions through before hand.

ace I love how you put politics before security in this case. You say what the administration did was fine because they were just playing good politics but ignore any issue of national security that comes as a result of it. Ace I think you are being blinded by your own partisanship.

The logic here is flawed.

The logic here is flawed also.

True, the response from the Bush administration was politically motivated. The Bush administration wanted political and public support for the war.

Was Libby responsible for the original leak? If not why did he "lie"?

What am I not accepting?

Other than the use of flawed logic, what is the support for your opinion?

I get it - Just because the Justice Dept....therefore it can't be... argument. I will have to remember that when the next Democratic Party administration is taken through the ringer for political reasons.

Perhaps they had no choice. Perhaps they were asked. Do you know the reason? Are you speculating? Are you speculating that the investigation by the CIA was not politically motivated? Did they know Plames undercover status? What were thaey actually investigating? So many questions. Perhaps I should start an investigation, care to fund it?

Perhaps, he was not aware of what Chaney was up to. Perhaps Ashcroft was doing his job, and not actually politically motivated. Perhaps, the expanding of the investigation was part of a larger politically motivated plan.

Fitzgerald has been known to politically grandstand for his career.


There is a difference between the report and what happened after the report. I think his report proved to be accurate.

I thought I was being ignored.

My first post in this thread was pretty much immaterial. My conclusion is that no one here has really taken the time to either read all the testimony and investigation reports or has thoroughly reviewed or even knows all the facts. I admitted that from the begining. I am the only one who has. We will never know the true motivation of any of the parties involved, there is no objective measure to prove someone's motivation. The support you look for would simply be opinion, no matter who writes it.

You use words that I don't. Why?

I did not say what they did was "fine".
I did not say it was "good" politics.

My initial support of the war had nothing to do with yellow cake in Africa.

I argue that I am not blind, in fact I argue the opposit. I call them like I see them. I know Bush and his team can be politically motivated, but heaven help me if I suggest the opponets of Bush might be politically motivated. I ask who is really blinded? Who is really lost in the fog?

Hey everybody, i was just watching fox news, and apparently this thread is way off track.

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/1696/libbyui2.jpg

haha foxnews has these sorts of typos all the time.

sorry if I miss interpreted your comments ace but could you clarify. Do you feel the administrations attempt to discredit Wilson by outing his wife was justified?

The administration acted inappropriately in the way they responded to the Plame matter. The response was a bit juvenile and lacked the Bush team's usual level of sophistication. The opposition response was no better. but that's just my opinion, sorry I don't have a page of links to support my view. I guess that makes my opinion less valid.________NOT!:eek:

And do you feel that is is legal or illegal to expose a covert operative in order to play politics?

I think it is illegal to expose an undercover CIA agent. I don't think Plame was under cover.

I think Plame being in the CIA should not have had anything to do with the Administration's response to the report. Nor was it important who sent Plame's husband to Africa.

I think the Administration should have stated early that the report of yellow cake from Africa was wrong. and just put an end to the issue.

Given the above and what I think was an error in the Admistration's response, I don't think they did anything illegal, nor do I think Libby's reported "lies" were material to hindering the investigation or to the core issue.

Thanks for your clarifications. I guess we agree on a lot of things. However, I do disagree with some of your conclusions. I believe there was enough evidence to suggest a crime may have been commited prompting an investigation. In that investigation Libby lied under oath on questions that were directly relevant to the investigation. Regardless of whether a crime was originally committed or not obstructing this investigation was still a crime.

Do you think Clinton obstructed justice, is guilty of perjury? Do you think he should serve jail time? I would answer no to those questions, because his "lie" was not material to the Paula Jones matter.

ace....and anyone else.....your thoughts on the following...i.e., who is and is not telling the truth....who is defending, IMO, the indefensible....what does this say about the integrity of the administration, and who is acting in the interests of "the nation, in a time of war"?
.....and why...with the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, saying this:
....was it neccessary to add thos "Some People Say....", "critics" lines to the "story".....why would "a liberal press", add "foxisms" to the story, especially after Libby was convicted.

Has there been any official statement from the White House, the DOJ, or the CIA, that contradicts Patrick Fitzgerald's "her employment was classified" statement, made in front of news cameras....so why are "critics say" references in the article that match no official statements, and would directly refute Fitzgerald, a man without a blemish on his record?

In all honesty, Ace, what does Clinton have to do with this?

What we should not punish people in government for wrong doings because you think we should have punished Clinton worse?

WTF it's been close to 10 years, doesn't your hate get old and expire after awhile?

Libby was found guilty he should pay the price.

And it's not just you it's a vocal bunch of GOP'ers that want to keep bringing Clinton's name up. WTF.

How can this country move forward in a positive manner if you and your party's voices are going to keep past hatreds and resentments alive?

Hey Zeus Freaking Crisps...... get the fuck over Clinton.... If you party screws up get the screw ups out and move on. Bringing up Clinton all the time does nothing..... except keeps hate alive and even that wears off after awhile.

Oh wait, the Left is being unfair to Bush sooooo the Left needs to just keep having what happened with Clinton 10 years ago thrown up and that gives the Right Carte Blanche. :rolleyes:

Politics of hate..... can't we all just want and work for what is best for this nation and stop the bullshit?

Out of the context of the flow of my exchange with Rekna, nothing.

I thought going after Clinton was a waste of government resources as was going after Libby. I think government should focus on things that matter to and have an impact on most of Americans. The political tit-for-tat appears as if it will never end.

How do you figure I "hate" Clinton? Just because I asked a question involving an issue during his time in office? If that is the test - it seems any reference to history is off limits. I don't accept that, so think what you will.

In our history many have been found guilty of crimes, when the charges were politically motivated. A guilty verdict does not make that kind of thing right.

There are double standards, involving both parties. I see it. Do you?

I don't resent or hate Clinton. In-fact, I doubt you could find a negative word ever written by me about Bill Clinton. So WTF are you talking about?

How about reading what I write before making attacks. I know it is easier to argue with stuff you make up. But if you want to make stuff up, don't use me.

The Bush administration "outed" Plame. At this point I don't think anyone is saying they didn't.

We disagree, but I think the attacks on the Bush administration has hurt our efforts during war. The administration in my opinion has an obligation to respond to critics. In this situation their response was wrong.

Was she undercover, or her job? If she was undercover, why didn't he charge Libby with that crime?

Don't know.

I think her status could have easily been de-classified by the administration. I think Fitzgerald is smart enough to know the difficulty in bringing a case on that issue. And he is smart enough to know it would not have been a wise thing to do, assuming he cares about his career. So, perhaps Fitzgerald is not as altruistic as you may want me to believe.

Host - sometimes you have to read between the lines.

Libby didn't get charged for outing her as a CIA agent because the law is very specific and requires a very heavy burden. In order to be prosecuted under the law you have to prove first that he knew she had a covert status and second that he intended to break her covert status.

Proving what someone knew and didn't know is very difficult but proving someones intent is near impossible without an admission.

Thank you for answering Ace. I didn't mean to single you out but I truly get tired of.... "well Clinton did...." and your post raised my ire.

I hope you know by our few exchanges I hold deep respect for you, so I am truly sorry if in any way you feel I was attacking you personally.

That said, I appreciate the answers and more people should be like you. It was a waste of money and our government was at a standstill unable or unwanting to do anything at the time.

This time around, the Bush admin. just keeps pushing the envelopes and seeing how far they can go.

Granted the Libby trial and all this hoopla over Plame, imho, is politically motivated and a waste of taxpayers money. However, I do think the Gonzales issue has teeth and should be investigated. We cannot be firing government officials like this simply because of their political leanings, it truly is abuse of power.

And yes, it is on both sides. Until the voters wake up and decide they want better we will continue to keep this downward spin in politics.

I'm just waiting for the sweeping presidential pardons when Bush leaves office, everyone involved will be back home in short order.

This condradicts every documented source on the matter. If you have some secret information that everyone else doesn't have -then do share where you are getting your information from.

I read about Plames testimony last week. First she seems to clearly say she is under cover. Then when asked directly if she was under cover she says - She is not a lawyer and could not answer the question, and says they did not tell her she was under cover, but that she did go on secret over seas missions. I think this qualifies as a joke at this point.

Here is a portion of the transcript of her testimony.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_...ript_0316.html

The jury believed "Pat", ace....and what he told the press, on camera, and what he told the court....federal judges....ace....facts asserted by a prosecutor, Pat Fitzgerald, who is clean enough to survive Rove's "opposition research" efforts, unscathed....

....and what he has said contradicts your points, which are identical to the talking points that are posted on conservative websites and uttered by conservative pundits, all over this land, for the past 3-1/2 years:
ace....if you're gonna continue to post your "stuff" with no support that comes close to matching or trumping mine....please strengthen your argument by offering support for a contention that Patrick Fitzgerald is mistaken, iis unreliable...so as not to be believable, or that he has lied in court filings or in statements to the press....there are video tapes, and transcripts. Or...post for us some reasons why Libby's lawyers did not try to prove that the testimony that Libby was convicted for falsely swearing to, was "not material", as a defense that you are attempting for him, here and now.....

....could this be why, ace?:
...and please forgive the link to a "blog" page for the preceding citation.

Document 184 is not located with other filings in the Libby case, here:
http://www.pegc.us/archive/US_v_Libby/
...and I cannot find document 184 elsewhere, but I am confident as to it's validity. May loquitur....if he's reading this, can validate it's authenticity, for us.....

My post came from her testimony. What can be better?

She was not told she was covert. She did not directly state that she met the definition. Fitzgerald did not bring forth charges against anyone for blowing her covert status.


See the above.



My only question is - If they have proof and Libby was involved in blowing her covert status, why didn't they attempt a conviction on that issue? I don't know, but you don't either. So why is your speculation more on target than mine?

What could be better? The actual context of the quote.



There was never any question on Plame's Covert Status. The congressman was asking a silly question like -do people come up to you and tell you that you are a covert agent. The congressman himself seemed to think that the Administration themselves did not know that Plame was covert -however this understanding means that PLAME WAS COVERT

Just to summarize your analysis of the incedent -you take one statement out of context to defend against a plethora of statements within context.

IMO, this very much has an impact on most Americans.
The result of their actions was the outing of a CIA Agent and the destruction of the anti-proliferation work done under Brewster-Jennings.
How much more relevant and necessary expense of resources is there than to remove individuals who would harm our intelligence gathering network to protect lies for political reasons, on something so vitally important as nuclear weapons?

Course, I guess it pales in comparison to perjury within the confines of a civil suit about sexual deviancy.

I looked at the video. The exchange speaks for itself, and I don't think my post took the quote out of context. The fact of the matter is that she was not told that she was covert meeting the definition of the law and she seemed to think it would take a lawyer to answer the question.

Pssst! Guess what - nobody told me but I am a covert agent for the CIA. I am so covert the CIA doesn't even know I work for the CIA. I have been under cover overseas. I think the thread count was about 500.:paranoid:

How can I take Plame serious when see poses on the cover of a national magazine? I don't think covert agents would do that. I still think this is now a joke.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/images/vf_wilson_plame.jpg

Her covert status is gone now thanks to the admin so posing on a magazine isn't a big deal. Anyway whether she is covert or not is a decision for a Jury.

I hope the CIA tells its covert agents they are covert. If they don't we have a problem in the CIA. We don't need a jury for us to know if she was in-fact a covert agent. We don't need lawyers either.

IMO, the "joke" is that you continue to repeat conservative "spin" that is completely opposite the position that the politicians in the executive branch, and at the CIA, and that special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has sworn to in court filings, both in the federal circuit court of appeals, and in federal court.

You "carry water" for deluded, extremely partisan pundits, bloggers, and republican PR "operatives" (examples... Victoria Toensing and her close, personal friend, Bob Novak....) in an effort to downplay the effects on moral and recruiting at vital agencies, during "a time of war", such as the CIA, DIA, etc....of the intentional leaking to the press, by high officials in the executive branch, of the classified details of a CIA employee who worked for a CIA "front" company, engaged in WMD counter-proliferation operations....

Why do you make the effort to do this ace....aren't you undermining "our troops", and giving those who violated their security clearances for political revenge, a "pass" that is akin to voicing your support for their crimes?

If you disagree with my points here, can you provide a quote from any high level, executive branch official, denying that Valerie Plame's CIA employment status was classified information? That would seem a required, and not too difficult, initial step in support of your oft posted argument.....if it is an accurate one, that is.....

I speak for myself and form my own opinions.

You just lost all credibility with me ace.

Having your credibility and quarter gets me what?

The point is that serious people don't make a mokery of their profession.

I don't know what the lady was thinking, but she had to know posing like that would be percieved as humorous.

Also, just because her name was listed in print did not mean her secret covert contacts would be able to connect her real name to the name she would use on her ultra-top-secret-missions. D'oh, but she had her picture published in a national magazine. D'oh, I bet she used her real name. D'oh, I bet she showed her secret covert contacts pictures of her husband. D'oh, looks like she forgot about that whole creating a false identity thingy for her ultra-covert-secret-missions.

Come on - you have to see the humor in that.:)

The woman was covert -that is a fact.

Saying that she isn't in the face of overwhelming evidence -is a lie.

Your credibility with me and certain other posters on here -obviously means very little to you.

I won the argument, you lost. Get over it.

For the moment I will accept that you are correct and that she was "covert" or what the agency calls "Non-official cover" as stated in the Vanity Fair article.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/va...erie_plame.php



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-official_cover

If she was NOC many questions beg to be answered, for example:

Why didn't she deny working for the CIA if she was NOC?
Why didn't the CIA deny her employment if she was NOC?
Why didn't Fitzgerald bring charges on blowing her NOC cover?
Why was she donating money to Gore and Kerry using her NOC cover?
Why was her husband drawing attension to his family by publishing articles against the administration while his wife was covert?
Why did people know she worked for the CIA if she was NOC?

This does not add up, and I still do not believe she was "covert" at the time she was outed.

damn it, this is getting tired. i'm sorry, i know that's not a very articulate positon, but for fuck's sake. her 'covert' status isn't up for contention. its a fact. she was 'covert' previously, when she worked for brewster-jennings. afterwards, she publicly took a desk jockey job with the cia; a natural move for someone with her public experience. this isn't simple shit, and they don't play cookie cutter roles. my guess on the first couple of your questions, ace is that that story was so huge that it made little difference. her contacts would have been compromised based on a rumor half that large. i don't think they wear groucho marx fake moustache glasses with an assumed identity; that's why its so dangerous. your background holds up to scrutiny because you really earned your degrees and so forth. you're a real person the government reaches out to in order to conduct espionage.

i personally hope they hold these guys to the fire on this one. i think its pretty obvious that scooter's the fall guy; but i can't feel too badly for him. he knew the game he was playing. i wonder if the precedent that may be set in the doj / executive privelage / advisory testimony could have any affect on follow ups to this.

Since it is March Maddness, saying Plame was covert is like saying an NCAA basketball player planning on going into the pro draft is a student. Sure the title may fit, but the reality is that the basketball player planning on going pro is no more a student than Plame saying she was "covert". I thought of that one over lunch and felt the need to share it, I promise that's my parting shot. (Pardon the pun.)

ace,

you know, i really do like you; you stick around no matter what. don't let wind get taken out of your sails, regardless and so forth. i don't mean this in a bad way, but that analogy really makes little sense to me. plame:covert as ncaa college player:student. um, no. when plame was a noc, she was a noc. when she retired from that role, she wasn't actively conducting covert activities, but her previous covert status was permanently classified.

furthermore, that player (sort of factually) is a student. that's what they are, by definition. if they talk to nba scouts at the wrong time, if their college coach sets up talks at the wrong time, if they accept gifts, so on and so forth, they get fined, the college gets fined. if they take certain types of professional merchandise, if they have an official team jersey with numbers, if they do a lot of other things. why? because they are a college student and treating them in certain ways is illegal. sort of like blowing the cover of a formerly covert noc.