"Scooter" Libby Found Guilty - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 03-06-2007, 10:57 AM

two characters

ratbastid · 03-06-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

For me, the remaining questions are twofold:
1. How far does the corruption go? Is Rove implicated in it? The VP? The President?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

2. Will Libby's conviction serve as a catalyst for further prosecutions, or will he be used as a scapegoat in order to cast blame away from other members of the administration?

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

The_Jazz · 03-06-2007, 11:19 AM

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.

mixedmedia · 03-06-2007, 11:19 AM

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.

Rekna · 03-06-2007, 11:23 AM

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.

dc_dux · 03-06-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

This has huge implications for the rest of the Bush Administration. I don't really see how this conviction can be viewed as anything other than a clear acknowledgement that at least some officials in the Bush administration are keeping important secrets about criminal activity.

For me, the remaining questions are twofold:
1. How far does the corruption go? Is Rove implicated in it? The VP? The President?
2. Will Libby's conviction serve as a catalyst for further prosecutions, or will he be used as a scapegoat in order to cast blame away from other members of the administration?

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.

Elphaba · 03-06-2007, 01:45 PM

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.

politicophile · 03-06-2007, 03:18 PM

two characters

dc_dux · 03-06-2007, 03:43 PM

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

Elphaba · 03-07-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

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

Yes, thankfully. Others are stuck with Jim McDermott.

Quote:

What impeachable offenses do you believe were revealed by the Libby trial?

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.

Rekna · 03-07-2007, 12:53 PM

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.

dc_dux · 03-07-2007, 02:05 PM

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.

roachboy · 03-07-2007, 02:35 PM

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.

aceventura3 · 03-07-2007, 03:11 PM

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.

Astrocloud · 03-07-2007, 05:42 PM

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

Elphaba · 03-07-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

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

Astrocloud, you are a hoot!

aceventura3 · 03-08-2007, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

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

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

host · 03-08-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't understand..........I don't get it.........

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.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030601969.html
Cheney's Suspected Role in Security Breach Drove Fitzgerald

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 7, 2007; A06

In a small room on the third floor of the D.C. federal courthouse in late March 2004, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald stood before I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and asked him three separate times whether his boss, Vice President Cheney, had discussed telling reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The question was not insignificant for Fitzgerald, who saw his mission as revealing the full chain of events behind the security breach involving Plame's work as an undercover CIA officer. Fitzgerald was unconvinced by Libby's response that even though he "may have" had such a conversation with Cheney, it probably occurred after Plame's identity had been revealed in a newspaper column.

Fitzgerald would respond with great frustration in his summation at Libby's trial almost three years later, saying that Libby's lies had effectively prevented him from learning about all of Cheney's actions in the administration's campaign to undermine Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

More than he had previously, Fitzgerald made clear in those remarks that his search for the truth about Cheney was a key ambition in his probe and that his inability to get it was a key provocation for Libby's indictment. Although Cheney was the target, Fitzgerald's investigation could not reach him because of Libby's duplicity.

Fitzgerald's summation explained, in part, why he brought charges based on imperfect evidence against Libby, even though Libby was not a source for Robert D. Novak, the author of the July 14, 2003, newspaper column that outed Plame as a CIA employee.

The jury's verdict addresses Fitzgerald's first conclusion -- that Libby lied deliberately and did not misspeak from faulty memory. But the trial showed that the prosecutor finished his investigation with his mind made up that Libby's account was meant to hide his own involvement as well as to conceal the potential involvement of the vice president.

At the trial's close, Fitzgerald expressed his concern in unusually blunt terms. After Libby's lawyers complained that he was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up, Fitzgerald told the jury on Feb. 20, "We'll talk straight."

There was, he said, "a cloud over what the vice president did" during the period before Novak's column was published, and it was created by testimony about Cheney directing Libby and others at the White House to disseminate information on Wilson and Wilson's criticisms.

"We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened," Fitzgerald added.

The notion that Libby was merely a courtroom stand-in for Cheney infuriated Libby's lawyers, who sought in their courtroom statement to defend both men. "Nobody in the office of the vice president is concerned about" Plame, Libby attorney William Jeffress Jr. said in his closing argument. "She never was part of the story they were trying to put out."

Fitzgerald disagreed. He twice used a baseball metaphor to describe what he believes went on in the vice president's office -- at his announcement of Libby's indictment on Oct. 28, 2005, and again during his trial summation. Suppose, Fitzgerald said, you were looking into whether a pitcher had purposely beaned a batter, and if so, why.

"As you sit back, you want to learn why was this information going out. Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters?" Fitzgerald asked at the 2005 news conference. "What we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened, and somebody blocked their view."

Randall D. Eliason, a former chief prosecutor of public corruption and fraud in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said Fitzgerald "would not have been doing his job" if he had not brought the charges. If "witnesses believe they can lie to the FBI and lie in the grand jury and there will be no consequences, then it becomes impossible to investigate any criminal activity, from terrorism to shoplifting."

Witnesses in the case never presented evidence of illegal actions by Cheney, nor did they ever pin direct responsibility for the leak on him. They presented what some lawyers considered an imperfect picture of Libby's duplicity in pretrial and trial testimony marked by bouts of forgetfulness and hazy recollections of events.

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, former CIA official Robert Grenier, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer each gave accounts of their interactions with Libby or other journalists that conflicted with their earlier statements or with the recollections of others besides Libby.

"Almost every witness would misspeak on direct [questioning] or left something out of grand jury testimony or got a date wrong," said Ty Cobb, a former assistant U.S. attorney who heads the white-collar criminal defense group at Hogan & Hartson. He expressed skepticism that the case against Libby should have been presented to a jury.

But Fitzgerald's decision to do so may have stemmed from his pique at his inability to get to the truth about Cheney, who appeared in testimony and in White House documents disclosed to the jury as the man behind the screen, pulling the switches and levers in what one of Fitzgerald's aides described as an orchestrated "political public relations" campaign to undermine Wilson.

Cheney, Fitzgerald suggested, had both motive and opportunity to run the show: He was deeply angered, even preoccupied, by Wilson's claim that Cheney deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's nuclear research. He was the first to tell Libby about Plame's job, and he scrawled a disparaging note about Plame's alleged responsibility for a CIA-sponsored "junket" to Niger that her husband took.

And finally, Cheney was convinced that if "everything" about the Wilson trip was disclosed to reporters, Wilson's credibility would be in tatters.

Libby's grand jury testimony addressed each point. "I'm not sure I would use the word 'ticked off,' but [Cheney] was frustrated" by the public impact of Wilson's critique, a topic that Cheney raised in multiple conversations, Libby said. Cheney directed Libby to interrogate Grenier on the reasons for the Wilson trip; he repeatedly "made comments" about Wilson's wife and mused about her role in arranging a junket; he dictated a set of talking points for journalists that opened with what Fitzgerald portrayed as a proverbial leading question about "who authorized Joe Wilson's trip to Niger."

"The question of who sent Wilson is important," Fitzgerald said. "It is a number one question on the vice president's mind."

Fitzgerald's presentation also called attention to two occasions in which Libby said Cheney instructed him to deal directly with reporters and spelled out what to say -- his meeting on July 8, 2003, with Miller and his telephone conversation four days later with Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper. In both, Libby mentioned Plame's employment at the CIA.

Fitzgerald's concerns were heightened by Libby's reply to a question about when he and Cheney first discussed Plame's CIA employment. "I think it was after the [July 6] Wilson column," which accused the White House of lying about the justification for the Iraq war, Libby told the grand jury.

But then he added: "I'm sorry, I don't mean the Wilson column, I'm sorry. I misspoke. I think, I think it was after the [July 14] Novak column," which disclosed Plame's name. He and Cheney had discussed other Wilson-related matters in the intervening period, Libby said, but not "that part about the wife."

Fitzgerald, in his summation, said he found this explanation incredible. He said Cheney referred to Plame in a note he inscribed on Wilson's column and noted that over the next two days, Libby raised the issue of her CIA employment with three others: Miller, Fleischer and Cheney aide David Addington. "If you think that's a coincidence, well, that makes no sense," Fitzgerald said.

He also called the jury's attention to the fact that Libby disclosed to Cheney his statement to the FBI that he learned about Plame's employment from Russert, which Russert later disputed. "The only person he told was the vice president. Think about that," Fitzgerald said.

Libby's false account of events, he added, was meant to serve as a "blocker . . . to cut off all those conversations with people, including the vice president." There is, Fitzgerald said, "a cloud over the White House as to what happened. Don't you think the FBI, the grand jury, the American people are entitled to a straight answer?"

Fitzgerald said at a news conference yesterday that Libby, "by lying and obstructing justice, harmed the system. And that was something serious. And that's the point we made to the jury, and obviously the jury agreed."

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, during the mission, or at anytime, afterwards...., 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, with the same confidence 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, before Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and Libby's trial and verdict, as they can have now, and going forward?

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:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030930-9.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 30, 2003

President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders

........ Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. 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. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.

I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.

Yes, let's see, Kemper -- he's from Chicago. Where are you? Are you a Cubs or White Sox fan? (Laughter.) Wait a minute. That doesn't seem fair, does it? (Laughter.)

Q Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him --

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.

And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

Thank you. ..........

......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:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060622-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
June 22, 2006

Interview of the Vice President by John King, CNN

THE VICE PRESIDENT: John, I am not going to comment on the case. It's -- I may be called as a witness. Scooter Libby, obviously, one of the finest men I've ever known .....

aceventura3 · 03-08-2007, 08:28 AM

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.

host · 03-08-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.....

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?

aceventura3 · 03-08-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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?

Quote:

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

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.

Rekna · 03-08-2007, 02:22 PM

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?

Astrocloud · 03-08-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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

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

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?

aceventura3 · 03-09-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

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

Never used the word "innocent", did I?

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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?

Quote:

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

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.

dc_dux · 03-09-2007, 08:28 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 03-09-2007, 10:45 AM

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.

Rekna · 03-09-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

aceventura3 · 03-09-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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.

Rekna · 03-09-2007, 11:45 AM

Sorry I missed those questions earlier.

Quote:

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 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.

Astrocloud · 03-09-2007, 05:22 PM

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

Quote:

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

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

aceventura3 · 03-10-2007, 08:03 AM

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

Astrocloud · 03-11-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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".

dc_dux · 03-11-2007, 08:43 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 03-12-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

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".

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.

Rekna · 03-12-2007, 07:41 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 03-12-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

The logic here is flawed.

Quote:

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.

The logic here is flawed also.

Quote:

Again the political motivation was the retribution by the White House against someone who presented reliable information that challenged the White House "war speak."

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

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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?

What am I not accepting?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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?

Quote:

What was the political motivation of Ashcroft (the AG at the time) to expand the investigation and appoint Fitzgerald?

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.

Quote:

What was Fitzgerald's political motivation (as a prosecutor who had investigated both Dem and Repub officials in IL)?

Fitzgerald has been known to politically grandstand for his career.

Quote:

Why was Wilson's report politically motivated rather than an objective finding of facts?

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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?

filtherton · 03-12-2007, 08:02 AM

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

Rekna · 03-12-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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

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?

aceventura3 · 03-12-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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!

Rekna · 03-12-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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!

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

03-06-2007, 10:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	"Scooter" Libby Found Guilty two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:29 PM..

03-06-2007, 11:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-06-2007, 11:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	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. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

03-06-2007, 01:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

03-06-2007, 03:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:29 PM..

03-06-2007, 11:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

03-06-2007, 03:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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 __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-06-2007 at 05:54 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

03-07-2007, 12:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

03-07-2007, 02:05 PM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-07-2007 at 02:16 PM..

03-07-2007, 02:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-07-2007, 03:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "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."

03-07-2007, 05:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	I don't understand either. How is this Clinton's fault?

03-08-2007, 08:28 AM	#19 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "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."

03-08-2007, 02:22 PM	#22 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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?

03-09-2007, 08:28 AM	#25 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-09-2007 at 09:22 AM..

03-09-2007, 10:45 AM	#26 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "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."

03-10-2007, 08:03 AM	#31 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	The Bush administration wanted to discredit the report from Plames husband. They wnated him to look like a flunky. __________________ "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."

03-11-2007, 08:43 AM	#33 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-11-2007 at 09:23 AM..

03-12-2007, 07:41 AM	#35 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

03-12-2007, 08:02 AM	#37 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Hey everybody, i was just watching fox news, and apparently this thread is way off track.