Are Supporters of the VP and Libby Aiding and Abetting War Time Treasonous Acts ? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-29-2007, 08:47 PM

The following was submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton's Court, on May 25, 2007, by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, in connection with the June 5th scheduled sentencing of Irwin "Scooter" Libby, and a determination by Judge Walton at that time, of whether Libby's grounds for appealing the convictions of the 4 charges that he was found guilty of, rise to a high enough standard to delay the commencement of his prison term until after his appeals to the appellate court:

Unclassified summary of Valerie Wilson's CIA Employment and Cover History:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...mployement.pdf

Okay....I've also included below:

Patrick Fitzgerald, prosecutor of Scooter Libby, submitted to the federal court (the Valerie Wilson CIA employment history document linked above, that: (in last quote box)

Quote:

......"Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.".....

I've included (immediately below) WaPo's Dan Froomkin's recap of Patrick Fitzgerald's descriptions, in court during Libby's trial:

Quote:

...It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."....

Following Froomkin's WaPo article, I've posted September 30, 2003 quotes from President Bush, claiming:

Quote:

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

And so I welcome the investigation.....

Following the Bush quote, I posted one of a long series of republican partisan slanted articles that state emphatically that "no crime was committed" by the intentional Bush administration "outing" of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent because:

Quote:

by Victoria Toensing
Sunday, February 18, 2007

....Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.......

Above was the unwavering republican talking points....for more than 3 years, even though they had no factual justification for determining this, even though believing this required dismissing the fact that the CIA asked for an criminal investigation regarding the leaking of Plame's CIA employment, and the DOJ determination that a detailed investigation was warranted....

Following Toensings' oped, I've posted a thinkprogress.org video and transcript of Plame's March 2007 congressional committee testimony, where she declares, under oath:

Quote:

CUMMINGS:.......By the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that. In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it, he said, “Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA.” “Ms. Wilson was undercover.” The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that there are people who are still trying to suggest that what seems absolutely clear isn’t really true and that you weren’t covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure there isn’t any ambiguity on this point. Just three more questions, did you hold this covert status at the time of the leak? Did you — the covert status at the time of the leak?

WILSON: Yes I did, congressman. Yes.

CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question. Again, we don’t want classified information, dates, locations, or any other details. During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?

WILSON: Yes I did, congressman.

CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today, you went on secret missions outside the United States. Is that correct?

WILSON: That is correct, congressman.

CUMMINGS: I want to thank you and I hope this committee now has cleared up the issue of covert, whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent, and I yield back.

I followed the thinkprogress.org partial transcript and video with a thinkprogress.org video and transcript of March, 2007 testimony of Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House:

Quote:

.....Knodell claimed the White House did not investigate because there was an outside investigation taking place. But Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) noted that the investigation “didn’t start until months and months later, and [only] had the purpose of narrowly looking to see whether there was a criminal law violated.” Waxman asked, “But there was an obligation for the White House to investigate whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately, wasn’t there?” Knodell answered, “If that was the case, yes.” Watch it:....

I posted the following LA Times article after the thinkprogress.org tannscript and video of Dr. Knodell's testimony:

Quote:

Testifying to panel, Plame takes spotlight
She accuses the White House of 'recklessly' blowing her CIA cover.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
March 17, 2007

Following the LA Times article, I posted this partisan republican rant from Robert Novak, dated 5 day's after Plames' testimony:

Quote:

Was She Covert?

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 22, 2007

....Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert and cited Hayden as proof. Hayden's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.......

This post ends with the MSNBC reporting described in this post's opening sentences:

Quote:

Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment
By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 3:24 p.m. ET May 29, 2007

In view of all of the preceding. briefly described supporting details, posted in much more depth, below, and in view of the contributions of money for Libby's criminal defense, raised by a committee headed by ex-DOJ political appointee, Barbara Comstock, and considering the lack of interest in investigating the Plame CIA leak inside the white house, and the villification of Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, by republicans, and the numerous attempts to manipulate the media into falsely reporting that the "leak" involved the commission of "no crime", and in view of the numerous letters of support for Libby sent to his sentencing judge by republican supporters, and the fact that the US was "at war" when the crime and the conspiracy in the Bush administration to "cover it up", took place, I submit that it is reasonable to believe that Cheney and Libby committed traitorous acts by leaking Plame's CIA employment circumstances and attempting to obstruct the criminal investigation of the leak that followed.

It also seems reasonable to think that all who have supported Libby, Cheney, and the Bush adminstration by claiming that no crime was committed by spreading the details of Plame's identity and CIA employment, knowing that it was classified information, ignoring that the CIA had requested a DOJ investigation, and/or failed to use their authority of office to investigate the leak from within the white house, or to come forward to tell president Bush, or the FBI, or special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, what they knew about the Plame CIA leak, especially during a time of war, aided and abetted the treasonous act(s) and conspiracy of Cheney and Libby.

If you disagree, unless you can show that some key things in my supporting material are inaccurate, what can you share to support your disagreement?

How can you possibly justify the leaking of Plame's CIA employment or anything less than Cheney's and Libby's full support of the investigation that followed?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901024_pf.html
Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; 1:22 PM

Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Libby was convicted in February of perjury and obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald filed a memo on Friday asking U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who will sentence Libby next week, to put him in prison for at least two and a half years.

Despite all the public interest in the case, Fitzgerald has repeatedly asserted that grand-jury secrecy rules prohibit him from being more forthcoming about either the course of his investigation or any findings beyond those he disclosed to make the case against Libby. But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)

Up until now, Fitzgerald's most singeing attack on Cheney came during closing arguments at the Libby trial in February. Libby's lawyers had complained that Fitzgerald was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up -- and that set Fitzgerald off. As I wrote in my Feb. 21 column, the special counsel responded with fire: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. . . . He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to [meet then-New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two-hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. . . .

"That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."

To those of us watching the investigation and trial unfold, Cheney's presence behind the scenes has emerged in glimpses and hints. (The defense's decision not to call Cheney to the stand remains a massive bummer.) But I suspect that people looking back on this story will see it with greater clarity: As a blatant -- and thus far successful -- cover-up for the vice president.
The Coverage

What little traditional media coverage there was of Fitzgerald's filing focused on sentencing issues.

Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post: "Former top Bush administration aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby should spend 30 to 37 months in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald contended in court documents filed yesterday.

"Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, has shown no remorse for lying to investigators and 'about virtually everything that mattered' in the probe of who disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media in 2003, Fitzgerald wrote."

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

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

Apuzzo does, however, note a key issue at next week's hearing: "Walton, who has a reputation for handing down tough sentences, . . . faces two important questions: whether to send Libby to prison and, if so, whether to delay the sentence until his appeals have run out."

As Josh Gerstein wrote in the New York Sun on Friday: "[T]he real cliffhanger at the sentencing hearing, set for June 5, is not what punishment Judge Reggie Walton imposes, but whether he allows Libby to remain free while pursuing his appeal. . . .

"Bail for Libby would amount to a reprieve for President Bush, who would then have until next year to make the politically sensitive decision about a pardon for the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. However, if the judge orders Libby jailed forthwith, Mr. Bush will face intense and immediate pressure from many of his supporters to commute the sentence or grant a pardon."

Gerstein also provides some important background: "Federal law dictates that bail pending appeal be denied unless the appeal raises 'a substantial question of law or fact' that could reverse the conviction or have a significant affect on Libby's sentence. . . .

"During the trial, Judge Walton expressed little concern that the appeals court would disagree with his rulings. 'If I get reversed on that one, maybe I need to hang up my spurs,' he said after deciding a dispute stemming from Libby's decision not to testify in his own defense."

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030930-9.html
September 30, 2003

President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

...... Let me answer a couple of questions, then we've got to go to Cincinnati. Deb.

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.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601705_pf.html
Trial in Error
If You're Going to Charge Scooter, Then What About These Guys?

By Victoria Toensing
Sunday, February 18, 2007; B01

.....If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:

* * *

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES PATRICK J. FITZERALD with ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed, with handling some witnesses with kid gloves and banging on others with a mallet, with engaging in past contretemps with certain individuals that might have influenced his pursuit of their liberty, and with misleading the public in a news conference because . . . well, just because. To wit:

· On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status......

.....Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column......

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/...-plame-covert/
March 16, 2007
CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’

During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

Watch it:

Transcript:

CUMMINGS: Ms. Wilson, first of all, thank you for your service. Ms. Wilson, even today your work for the CIA is so highly classified that we’re not permitted to discuss the details, but we can clarify one crucial point — whether you worked undercover for the CIA. You said your position was covert but I’ve heard others say you were not covert. In fact, one of the witnesses who will testify a little bit later, Victoria Toensing, is making that same argument. In an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post on February 18, she says it quite bluntly. She says, “Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years.” I know there are restrictions on what you can say today, but is Ms. Toensing’s statement correct?

WILSON: Congressman, thank you for the opportunity. I know I’m here under oath, and I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan, when he comes back to the Pentagon, he is still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back to a temporary assignment in Washington, they, too, are still covert.

CUMMINGS: Is it possible that Ms. Toensing had more information than you do about your work or had access to secret document that you don’t?

WILSON: I would find that highly unlikely, congressman, because much of that information about my career is still classified.

CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Mr. Waxman told me that Gen. Hayden said clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.” There was no doubt about it. By the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that. In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it, he said, “Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA.” “Ms. Wilson was undercover.” The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that there are people who are still trying to suggest that what seems absolutely clear isn’t really true and that you weren’t covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure there isn’t any ambiguity on this point. Just three more questions, did you hold this covert status at the time of the leak? Did you — the covert status at the time of the leak?

WILSON: Yes I did, congressman. Yes.

CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question. Again, we don’t want classified information, dates, locations, or any other details. During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?

WILSON: Yes I did, congressman.

CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today, you went on secret missions outside the United States. Is that correct?

WILSON: That is correct, congressman.

CUMMINGS: I want to thank you and I hope this committee now has cleared up the issue of covert, whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent, and I yield back.

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/...se-plame-leak/

Quote:

White House Security Chief Reveals -- No Probe of Plame Leak There
NEW YORK -- Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House ... Henry Waxman if he knew this was an issue of concern, he said "yes. ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0316-06.htm

Top Bush Official Reveals White House Never Investigated Plame Leak

Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, revealed today that to his knowledge the White House has never ordered a probe, report, or sanctions as a result of the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. “I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office,” he said.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said he was “shocked” by Knodell’s testimony, adding that the White House’s lack of action was a “breach on top of a breach.”

Knodell claimed the White House did not investigate because there was an outside investigation taking place. But Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) noted that the investigation “didn’t start until months and months later, and [only] had the purpose of narrowly looking to see whether there was a criminal law violated.” Waxman asked, “But there was an obligation for the White House to investigate whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately, wasn’t there?” Knodell answered, “If that was the case, yes.” Watch it:

Shortly after the leak was revealed by Novak, Bush said he wanted an investigation to identify the leaker:

A senior official quoted Bush as saying, “I want to get to the bottom of this,” during a daily meeting yesterday morning with a few top aides, including Rove.

Bush: “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.“

E&P reports, “The White House had first opposed Knodell testifying but after a threat of a subpoena from the committee yesterday he was allowed to appear today.” The Gavel has more.

Digg It!

UPDATE: Rep. Waxman wrote a letter to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten asking him to explain why the White House failed to conduct any investigation following the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert CIA employment. Read it here.

Transcript:

CUMMINGS: Let me ask you a few questions, because in answering some of the chairman’s questions, you left me shocked. And I want to make sure I heard you right.

Are you saying, with regard to this case — that is the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson — there is no report?

KNODELL: Not in my office; there is not.

CUMMINGS: And are you also saying that there was no investigation?

KNODELL: Not by my office.

CUMMINGS: Not by your office. And so you would — I could conclude then that there were no sanctions. Is that correct? No sanctions within your office? I mean — is it one of your jobs, is it part of your job to recommend sanctions where you find that there is then a breach?

KNODELL: Correct. But there was already an outside investigation that was taking place — criminal investigation. That’s why we took no action.

CUMMINGS: Now, one of your main objectives for being in the White House is to make sure that you — make sure that these kinds of things don’t happen. Is that right?

KNODELL: Correct.

CUMMINGS: And I would assume that if anyone were to take the job that you took, that one of their — in considering what happened before you got there — that this would be something that would be on the minds of everybody, because, again, this is like bells ringing, alarms going off.

CUMMINGS: This is the kind of thing that you don’t want to do, because this could end up in your lap. Is that right?

KNODELL: In this particular case, you’re absolutely right. This started long before my tenure in this position. By the time I took the position, the criminal investigation was already under way.

CUMMINGS: But did you look into it at all? You didn’t look into it at all?

KNODELL: Right.

CUMMINGS: I mean, just so that you could make sure you did your job right and didn’t allow this to happen again?

KNODELL: We didn’t want to have collateral investigations going on at the same time, sir.

CUMMINGS: So if there is a criminal investigation and you have got to — you’re trying to make sure it doesn’t happen again, so you don’t even look into it at all?

In other words, you, as the guy — you’re the guy who is responsible for guarding all of this and making sure that everything goes right. So it sounds to me like we had a breach on top of a breach. We had one situation where Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity and covert status was disclosed. And then within the very office within the White House, there’s no report, there’s no investigation and there are no sanctions.

KNODELL: Sir, again, any reporting would have taken place prior to my arriving into the office.

CUMMINGS: Now, the criminal case is…

WAXMAN: Will the gentleman yield to me…

CUMMINGS: Of course.

<h3>WAXMAN: … because I just want to pin this point down? Do you know whether there was an investigation at the White House after the leaks came out?

KNODELL: I don’t have any knowledge of an investigation within my office.

WAXMAN: Ever?

KNODELL: I do not.

WAXMAN: Because the president said he was investigating this matter and was going to get the bottom of it. You’re not aware that any investigation took place?

KNODELL: Not within my office, sir.

WAXMAN: And if there was an investigation, what were you referring to, Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation?

KNODELL: Yes, the outside investigation.

WAXMAN: OK, that didn’t start until months and months later, and that had the purpose of narrowly looking to see whether there was a criminal law violated. But there was an obligation for the White House to investigate whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately, wasn’t there?

KNODELL: If that was the case, yes.</h3>

Posted by Think Progress March 16, 2007

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true

Testifying to panel, Plame takes spotlight
She accuses the White House of 'recklessly' blowing her CIA cover.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
March 17, 2007

WASHINGTON — With a phalanx of cameras awaiting her entrance, Valerie Plame stepped out of the spy-world shadows and into the spotlight.

For nearly four years, Plame had been a silent, Garbo-like figure at the center of one of Washington's most consuming scandals. Her unmasking as a covert CIA officer became a case study of the brutal politics of the Iraq war, and launched a criminal probe that led to the conviction of a top White House official.

On Friday, Plame finally offered her inside account. She testified before a congressional committee that she felt as if she had been "hit in the gut" when her once-secret identity appeared in the media, and accused the Bush administration of "recklessly" blowing her cover......

....Plame said she was at home in bed when she first learned her name had been published in a syndicated column by Robert Novak. She said her husband threw a copy of the newspaper on the bed and said, "He did it," meaning Novak had printed her name.

"I felt like I had been hit in the gut," she said.

She also said she immediately recognized — and was subsequently informed by a superior at the agency — that her clandestine career was over.

Plame was able to testify in part because the criminal investigation of the leak ended last week when I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, was convicted on four felony counts of lying to investigators. Neither Libby nor any other government official has been charged with leaking Plame's identity.

When asked by the committee about a statement Bush made as the leak investigation was unfolding that he would fire anyone involved with unmasking her, Plame responded: "Karl Rove clearly was involved in the leaking of my name, and he still carries a security clearance. I believe it undermines the president's word." Rove is Bush's chief political advisor.

Even so, Waxman said, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden had informed the committee that at the time Plame's identity was exposed, she was an undercover officer and that any disclosure of her agency employment status was prohibited by executive order......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032101788.html
Was She Covert?

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 22, 2007; 12:00 AM

Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard on television Friday as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.

As House intelligence committee chairman when Republicans controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman, 67, the 17-term congressman from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the director of central intelligence. Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra yesterday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The former CIA employee's status is critical to the attempted political rehabilitation of former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush's principal adviser. The purpose of last week's hearing was to blame Rove for "outing" Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance.

Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out of Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last week's hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs. Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted her career in intelligence.

Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?

Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert and cited Hayden as proof. Hayden's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats....

Quote:

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment
By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 3:24 p.m. ET May 29, 2007

WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

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

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

Undercover travel

The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.".....

.....Fitzgerald wrote last week in the 18-page memo, "Particularly in a case such as this, where Mr. Libby was a high-ranking government official whose falsehoods were central to issues in a significant criminal investigation, it is important that this court impose a sentence that accurately reflects the value the judicial system places on truth-telling in criminal investigations."

The special counsel recommended to the judge that Libby not receive any leniency, because, he writes, "He has expressed no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no recognition that there is anything he should have done differently - either with respect to his false statements and testimony, or his role in providing reporters with classified information about Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA."

Libby was convicted in March of four of five felony counts against him. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 5th before U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton.

host · 06-05-2007, 08:25 AM

Libby sentenced to 30 months and $250,000 fine....Judge Walton allows defense request to file brief in support of Libby remaining free on bail until his appeal is heard.... bail hearing to take place next thursday, June 14.

He still risks being sent to jail this summer....

Judge did not agree that Scooter "did nothing wrong".....

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/28/video-bush-i
“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” -GEORGE H.W. BUSH [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]

Willravel · 06-05-2007, 08:36 AM

Hell yes they are. I don't have much to add beyond that. The VP and Libby are traitors to the American people and those who support them provide them with the means to continue their behavior. I'd also like to throw Rice in with that bunch.

dc_dux · 06-05-2007, 08:54 AM

Walton is a tough law and order judge, who, btw, was appointed to the DC Circuit Court by Bush.

I would lean to him NOT allowing Libby to remain free pending appeal, particularly since Walton has indicated that he does not believe an appeal has merit based on how he presided over the case.

We shall see next week after both sides file arguments for/against LIbby remaining free...but I expect we will see the "perp" walk to jail later this summer.

The only question remaining if that happens....is a pardon by Bush between now and then.

ubertuber · 06-05-2007, 09:42 AM

For those who are interested, The Smoking Gun has copies of letters people sent to Judge Walton. Most of them are character witnesses in Mr. Libby's favor.

I enjoyed reading through these - Mr. Libby must be quite a character to have garnered references from as wide a crew as Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Carville.

I suppose these people would be the ones who are aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...071libby1.html

host · 06-05-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

For those who are interested, The Smoking Gun has copies of letters people sent to Judge Walton. Most of them are character witnesses in Mr. Libby's favor.

I enjoyed reading through these - Mr. Libby must be quite a character to have garnered references from as wide a crew as Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Carville.

I suppose these people would be the ones who are aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...071libby1.html

uber, instead of posting your inference about my opinion (which I won't characterize ....I leave that to readers to do...) of what apologists for Libby...those who claim that "no underlying crime was committed", or those raising money for him...now, after he was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts, why not share with us, what you think folks like Fred Thompson are doing, related to their support for Libby, detraction of Fitzgerald and his motives, making claims....this late....that "she wasn't covert".... isn't Libby a man who covered up for those who deliberately leaked classified information, during war time, and....isn't doing that, treasonous?

ubertuber · 06-05-2007, 10:12 AM

host: who's inferring? I quoted your thread title and gave up examples of people supporting Libby in their own words.

I'd have thought that people who were interested in the developments in this case would find these letters fascinating. I did.

The_Jazz · 06-05-2007, 10:14 AM

host, what's the treasonable act? The expression of First Amendment rights in the wake of a court's decision? "Spin" is protected speech, and that's all that Thompson et al are doing.

Willravel · 06-05-2007, 10:26 AM

Outing a NOC has got to be a crime, though I'm not sure what the specifics are around it.

host · 06-05-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

.....I enjoyed reading through these - Mr. Libby must be quite a character to have garnered references from as wide a crew as Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Carville.

I suppose these people would be the ones who are aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...071libby1.html

I reacted to this... "
I suppose these people would be the ones who are aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts:"

.....if the act that Libby obstructed the FBI and the special counsel's investigation of..... the deliberate leaking of the name and the employment details of a covert CIA "operative", during "war time", is not a treasonous act, what would you describe it as ?

ubertuber · 06-05-2007, 10:59 AM

I'm not really trying to stake out a position on this yet - I'm taking in all of the current information. I suppose I'm inclined to rely on the court's findings.

My reasons for posting in this thread are merely to add more information to the discussion. Strangely, I'm feeling attacked for doing so.

Are the people I referenced the ones who you feel are specifically aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts?

I'm wondering, for the sake of discussion, if you really mean what you write, or if some of it is hyperbole?

Aiding and abetting are specific terms in law. Generally speaking, once a crime is committed and the perp convicted, you can't really aid or abet them. Similarly, one could argue that we're not at war, since a state of war hasn't been declared. Lastly, treason means something very specific in this country. Did you know that the Constitution specifically restricts the definition of treason?

Quote:

Originally Posted by US CONSITUTION

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

This makes defining this crime (and also Libby's) as treasonous rather problematic. I suppose that if you could convince a court that Bush/Cheney are Enemies of the United States, you could claim that Libby adhered to them. Good luck with that. Of course, there's also the issue that no one has confessed, and I have yet to see that two witnesses to the same act have been produced - which would also be difficult since you can't make someone bear witness against himself.

Did you know that "In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions." Not only that, but some of the ones who were convicted were pardoned, by no less a precedent setter than George Washington? I just found that out. (Wikipedia Link)

I'm not defending the actions of whoever disclosed Plame's identity, but I am still a little suspicious of your characterization. I'm sorting it out, and I think that this is a fair position.

aceventura3 · 06-05-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

host: who's inferring? I quoted your thread title and gave up examples of people supporting Libby in their own words.

I'd have thought that people who were interested in the developments in this case would find these letters fascinating. I did.

Thanks for the link, I found the letters interesting as well.

host · 06-05-2007, 11:07 AM

Again, ubertuber, the words of a former congressman UN ambassador, Director of Central Intelligence, VPOTUS, and POTUS:

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/28/video-bush-i
“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” -GEORGE H.W. BUSH [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Are the people I referenced the ones who you feel are specifically aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts?

I answered your question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

uber, instead of posting your inference about my opinion (which I won't characterize ....I leave that to readers to do...) of what apologists for Libby...those who claim that "no underlying crime was committed", or those raising money for him...now, after he was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts, why not share with us, what you think folks like Fred Thompson are doing, related to their support for Libby, detraction of Fitzgerald and his motives, making claims....this late....that "she wasn't covert".... isn't Libby a man who covered up for those who deliberately leaked classified information, during war time, and....isn't doing that, treasonous?

ubertuber · 06-05-2007, 11:15 AM

Ah, but traitors are not always guilty of treason. In fact, they almost never are. I quite these easily verifiable facts from wikipedia:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia, linked above

Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating treason-like offense with different names (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) that do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason. click to show

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807 (See Burr conspiracy), resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.

After the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was tried for treason, though a number of leading Confederates (including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) were indicted. Those who had been indicted received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office in 1869.

Several people generally thought of as traitors in the United States, including Jonathan Pollard, the Walker Family, Robert Soblen, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were not prosecuted for treason, but rather for espionage. John Walker Lindh, an American citizen who fought with the Taliban against the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance, was convicted of conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals rather than treason.

The Cold War saw frequent associations between treason and support for (or insufficient hostility toward) Communist-backed causes. The most memorable of these came from Senator Joseph McCarthy, who characterized the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman administrations as "twenty years of treason." McCarthy also investigated various government agencies for Soviet spy rings; however, he acted as a political fact-finder rather than criminal prosecutor. Despite such rhetoric, the Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason.

On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he spoke supportively of al-Qaeda.

I suppose I can conclude that you did not read the links I provided?

seretogis · 06-05-2007, 11:16 AM

I'm pretty sure that accusations of treason are akin to comparisons to Hitler on internet political forums. While there certainly are similarities, the actuals are far more serious at the moment.

pan6467 · 06-05-2007, 12:59 PM

I believe that it is reasonable to ask the question so long as it is used to open true debate and discussion. If it is used to just attack, make accusations and not give other views and ideas the same time and respect to answer the question.... then no, it's unreasonable because the thread was made for the wrong reasons and thus the question is leading and argumentative.

Elphaba · 06-05-2007, 04:53 PM

Kuddo's host, for the excellent summation of the critical points. My thoughts are as follows:

Libby and others worked to hide the identities of the actual decision makers in the outing of Plame. She was undeniably a covert agent, yet fed to the press for political purposes. We may never know what harm came to her contacts, but we do know that this vengeful "example" made of anyone who chooses to contradict the Bush story line ended her useful career within the agency and any wmd contacts she had made in her 30 year career.

The decision makers are guilty of treason, if not of high crimes and misdemeanors, as are their immediate supporters such as Libby who knew of the intended purpose. But the OP question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, because the criminal investigation of who authorized the outing Plame was ended with Libby's lies. I believe supporters of Libby can only be considered supporters of a liar from a legal standpoint. There has been no other proven guilt under law of any other offense.

With that torturous examination of the current state of the Plame outing, I would have to say "No" it is not reasonable to call Libby supporters abetting in treason. Yet.

ubertuber · 06-05-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

We may never know what harm came to her contacts...

Now that's an interesting aspect that I haven't really seen emphasized. It is entirely possible that assets she was in contact with have been discovered as a result of her outing.

I wouldn't for a second argue that the outing of Plame and subsequent coverup are anything but unethical, probably illegal, certainly shortsighted, and to me, unconscionable.

However, I'm going to have to say that the poll question here is worded so specifically that I can't answer yes.

To agree with this, you'd have to get around these issues:

1) Aiding and abetting doesn't mean helping out or whatever colloquial thing people are thinking of. From Findlaw (link): "A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support." I'm not a lawyer, and if/when loquitur shows up I'll be happy to hear his input, but this definition seems to have to do with the commission of a crime, not necessarily the subsequent coverup or possible obstruction of justice, which people seem to be charged for separately.

2) Despite what Bush says for rhetorical effect, it's not war time. There exists no state of war, because the Congress has not declared one. I know you know this, because it comes up frequently when convenient for either side.

3) Treason has an extremely specific definition in the Constitution, which I have already posted in this thread. Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution (Cornell.edu link): "Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

Levying war against the US, adhering to their enemies, and giving enemies aid and comfort, are the treasonous actions. None of these things has happened, unless you can miraculously convince a court that our President and VP are enemies of the US. Short of that, there has been no treasonous act. Aiding and abetting, or helping out, or covering up don't appear on this list. Please note that treasonous, traitorous, and illegal are 3 different things.

As I said before, these actions were probably illegal. I'd call them traitorous. Hell, these actions may even be impeachable - but they're not treasonous. Don't you think it is striking that the Constitution is more restrictive and definite about treason than it is about impeachment?

That's why I voted no.

host · 06-09-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ah, but traitors are not always guilty of treason. In fact, they almost never are. I quite these easily verifiable facts from wikipedia:

I suppose I can conclude that you did not read the links I provided?

uber, now, I have read the info at your provided links...(forgive this late and incomplete response; I've travelled to attend festivities...my stepson is sandwiching in his marriage between Afghan tours of duty, and my wife has pulled me temporarily away from TFP politics....)

You've done a great job of making your case that the thread title is dubious from a literal legal standpoint. I'll return soon to defend the idea that it still has merit, in spite of probably not rising to legal definition of "treason", or of "abetting", under US law....

ubertuber · 06-09-2007, 03:44 AM

Thanks host.

I'll give you this, because my disagreement is mostly based on degree and precision:

I would probably have voted yes if the the poll question had been "Are supporters of the VP and Libby enabling actions that undermine our government and Constitution?" Maybe even throw the word traitorous in there...

And congrats to your stepson! I hope he returns from his next tour healthy and safe.

host · 08-04-2007, 10:33 AM

More support for the FACT that details concerning Plame's CIA employment were (and still are...classified information....)

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301363_pf.html
Judge sides with CIA in suit over Plame memoir

By Edith Honan
Reuters
Friday, August 3, 2007; 3:21 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The ex-spy whose unmasking led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide cannot disclose the dates she worked for the CIA because the details were never declassified, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision, made public on Friday by U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones, was a victory for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, which sought to block former agent Valerie Plame Wilson from including the dates in her upcoming memoir, "Fair Game."

Plame, along with publisher Simon & Schuster, filed a lawsuit in May against Mike McConnell, the U.S. director of national intelligence, and CIA Director Michael Hayden, seeking to stop the CIA from interfering with publication of her book.

"The information at issue was properly classified, was never declassified, and has not been officially acknowledged by the CIA," the judge said.

Plame's cover as a CIA agent was blown when her identity was leaked to reporters and appeared in a newspaper column in 2003, shortly after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, emerged as an Iraq war critic.

Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the leak. President George W. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence last month.

Plame's suit argued that the CIA released her dates of service in an unclassified letter sent to her in 2006 by the agency, and that the agency "now purports to classify or reclassify Ms. Wilson's pre-2002 federal service dates" so it cannot be published in her memoir.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the letter had been "an administrative error" because it contained classified information......

View Poll Results: Is it Reasonable to answer yes to the question asked in this thread's title?
Yes	4	66.67%
No	2	33.33%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

06-05-2007, 08:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Walton is a tough law and order judge, who, btw, was appointed to the DC Circuit Court by Bush. I would lean to him NOT allowing Libby to remain free pending appeal, particularly since Walton has indicated that he does not believe an appeal has merit based on how he presided over the case. We shall see next week after both sides file arguments for/against LIbby remaining free...but I expect we will see the "perp" walk to jail later this summer. The only question remaining if that happens....is a pardon by Bush between now and then. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-05-2007, 09:42 AM	#5 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	For those who are interested, The Smoking Gun has copies of letters people sent to Judge Walton. Most of them are character witnesses in Mr. Libby's favor. I enjoyed reading through these - Mr. Libby must be quite a character to have garnered references from as wide a crew as Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Carville. I suppose these people would be the ones who are aiding and abetting war time treasonous acts: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...071libby1.html __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-05-2007, 10:12 AM	#7 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	host: who's inferring? I quoted your thread title and gave up examples of people supporting Libby in their own words. I'd have thought that people who were interested in the developments in this case would find these letters fascinating. I did. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-05-2007, 10:14 AM	#8 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	host, what's the treasonable act? The expression of First Amendment rights in the wake of a court's decision? "Spin" is protected speech, and that's all that Thompson et al are doing. __________________ "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

06-05-2007, 08:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hell yes they are. I don't have much to add beyond that. The VP and Libby are traitors to the American people and those who support them provide them with the means to continue their behavior. I'd also like to throw Rice in with that bunch.

06-05-2007, 10:26 AM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Outing a NOC has got to be a crime, though I'm not sure what the specifics are around it.

06-05-2007, 11:16 AM	#15 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I'm pretty sure that accusations of treason are akin to comparisons to Hitler on internet political forums. While there certainly are similarities, the actuals are far more serious at the moment. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-05-2007, 12:59 PM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I believe that it is reasonable to ask the question so long as it is used to open true debate and discussion. If it is used to just attack, make accusations and not give other views and ideas the same time and respect to answer the question.... then no, it's unreasonable because the thread was made for the wrong reasons and thus the question is leading and argumentative. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-05-2007, 04:53 PM	#17 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Kuddo's host, for the excellent summation of the critical points. My thoughts are as follows: Libby and others worked to hide the identities of the actual decision makers in the outing of Plame. She was undeniably a covert agent, yet fed to the press for political purposes. We may never know what harm came to her contacts, but we do know that this vengeful "example" made of anyone who chooses to contradict the Bush story line ended her useful career within the agency and any wmd contacts she had made in her 30 year career. The decision makers are guilty of treason, if not of high crimes and misdemeanors, as are their immediate supporters such as Libby who knew of the intended purpose. But the OP question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, because the criminal investigation of who authorized the outing Plame was ended with Libby's lies. I believe supporters of Libby can only be considered supporters of a liar from a legal standpoint. There has been no other proven guilt under law of any other offense. With that torturous examination of the current state of the Plame outing, I would have to say "No" it is not reasonable to call Libby supporters abetting in treason. Yet. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

06-09-2007, 03:44 AM	#20 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Thanks host. I'll give you this, because my disagreement is mostly based on degree and precision: I would probably have voted yes if the the poll question had been "Are supporters of the VP and Libby enabling actions that undermine our government and Constitution?" Maybe even throw the word traitorous in there... And congrats to your stepson! I hope he returns from his next tour healthy and safe. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam