Libby Guilty

[A.S.A.P]

<p>From Andrew Sullivan, a conservative commentator.</p>

<p>

Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president’s office. The salience of this case is obvious. What it is really about - what it has always been about - is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war. The risks Cheney took to attack Wilson, the insane over-reaction that otherwise very smart men in this administration engaged in to rebut a relatively trivial issue: all this strongly implies the fact they were terrified that the full details of their pre-war WMD knowledge would come out. Fitzgerald could smell this. He was right to pursue it, and to prove that a brilliant, intelligent, sane man like Libby would risk jail to protect his bosses. What was he really trying to hide? We now need a Congressional investigation to find out more, to subpoena Cheney and, if he won’t cooperate, consider impeaching him.

</p>

[kluge]

<p>Well, my two cents worth is this: I have a lot of faith in the jury system, as I’ve said before, and this jury seems to have been conscientious and thorough. So I’ll take their word for it. And I’m kind of glad that the BushCo slime machine got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, although I always thought that the whole “CIA covert agent” thing was just an unfortunate (for the Bushies) happenstance. The tactic of attacking any bearer of contradictory views by every conceivable means (and the means here were depressingly tawdry) has become a staple of the right, from the Luntz memos, to the Gingrich “call your opponents weak traitors” memo, to pretty much every tactic Karl Rove has championed. It’s dragged the American political debate level down into the mud. And finally a guy took the fall for it.</p>

<p>Having said that, I hope Libby is pardoned, or else gets a slap on the wrist sentence. There’s no reason he should bear the full weight of the penalty for a philosophy which has come to dominate an entire sector of American political thought. Cut the guy some slack. But maybe a lesson can be learned?</p>

[Hanna]

<p>“Having said that, I hope Libby is pardoned, or else gets a slap on the wrist sentence.”</p>

<p>Actually, I agree with you. It’s flat wrong for underlings to go to jail while the puppet masters walk. It’s just like Abu Ghraib. Those kids in the pictures did wrong, but it is low, low, low to lock them up while their bosses (all the way up to Bremer, Rumsfeld, and Bush) escape consequences, explaining that it’s not their job to supervise.</p>

<p>I’m trying to imagine a senior partner in my line of work telling a judge, “I know the brief was never filed, but it was the bike messenger’s fault, and I fired him, so don’t blame me.” He’d be a laughingstock, and rightly so. Around here, if your name is on the door, your butt is on the line. And if you are unable to keep your staff from breaking the law on company time, you don’t belong at the top of the pyramid.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>A lesson? Let’s hope so. I don’t agree that a slap on the wrist is what is warranted, Kluge, unless you’re talking 2-3 years in prison. Not if lessons are truly to be learned.
From Greenwald’s column in salon:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/06/libby/[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/06/libby/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Today’s event sends a potent and unmistakable message, one that is absolutely reverberating in the West Wing: If Libby can be convicted of multiple felonies, then any Bush official who has committed crimes can be as well. Not only are Bush officials subject to the rule of law (their radical theories of executive power to the contrary notwithstanding), they are also vulnerable to legal consequences (the defeatist beliefs of some Bush critics notwithstanding). Having the nation watch this powerful Bush official be declared a criminal – despite having been defended by the best legal team money can buy – resoundingly reaffirms the principle that our highest political officials can and must be held accountable when they break the law.

</p>

<p>An article worth reading in its entirety</p>

[Hanna]

<p>“Not only are Bush officials subject to the rule of law”</p>

<p>I hope this stays true after they get done firing US Attorneys. We’ll see.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>People may not realize that Libby is not your typical underling. He was the Vice=President’s Chief of Staff, and Advisor to the President on matters of national security. Libby is one of the original signature’s of Kristol’s Project for a New American Century that advocated attacking Iraq to bring American dominance to the middle east long before 9/11.<br>
Libby was a player, and a key player, in this administration.</p>

[conyat]

<p><a href=“http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/11999/2001883825464813443_rs.jpg[/url]”>http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/11999/2001883825464813443_rs.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Fox actually ran this as breaking news that Libby was found NOT GUILTY. </p>

<p>Apparently, they based this on the one count he was acquitted on, not the four that he was convicted of. </p>

<p>They even claim he was found “not guilty of lying” to FBI investigators, but he was actually found guilty on one of the two counts of lying to FBI investigators.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>That’s hilarious!!! It’s so FOX.</p>

[NYMomof2]

<p>Good point, A.S.A.P. If anyone is interested in the PNAC manifesto, circa 2000, it is available here:</p>

<p><a href=“PREDIKSI168: Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Dan Slot88 Gampang Menang”>PREDIKSI168: Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Dan Slot88 Gampang Menang;

[TheDad]

<p>FF, your imitation of “Baghdad Bob” is hilarious. Good work, keep it up. Parody like that is <em>really</em> hard to do.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>I think it’s outrageous that Libby will take the fall for Cheney. Cheney is beyond despicable.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Neither the CIA nor the appointed prosecutor knew when they started who had leaked Plame’s name.

</p>

<p>Hayden, your facts and timeline are wrong. The original leaker was Armitage. This was well known by the justice department 3 months before a special prosecutor was even appointed. There should never had been a special prosecutor appointed - except for the fact that the administration caved to the demands of the media and the Dems. </p>

<p>And, TheDad, I see that your level of contribution of facts and insight on this thread are up to your normal standards.</p>

[OdysseyTigger]

<p>Beyond that Valerie Flame was not a covert agent and could not have been outed…</p>

<p>From NY Post
“…Thus ends (pending appeals) a 38-month investigation into the so-called Plamegate case.
…, it’s fair to say that Fitzgerald added nothing to what was well known about the question that ostensibly prompted this probe in the first place: Who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson’s name to columnist Robert Novak?
The answer, as Fitzgerald knew for three years, was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage - in an off-hand conversation, not a leak.
And since Armitage was a critic of the Iraq war, that pretty much shot down any suggestion that the White House had deliberately sought to “out” Plame in order to sabotage her husband’s public criticism of Bush’s Iraq policy.
So what was this all about?
Scoring points against Bush.
That much is obvious, given prosecutor Fitzgerald’s conduct during Libby’s trial.
It’s not just that his closing argument was blatantly political, charging that Libby’s boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, had orchestrated the leak of Plame’s name in order to discredit her husband.
In fact, Fitzgerald throughout the case seemed to violate a central rule set down by the judge: Valerie Plame Wilson’s actual status at the CIA was wholly irrelevant to the charges against Libby. Whether or not she was a covert agent - meaning disclosure of her name might be a crime - didn’t matter.
Yet Fitzgerald broadly suggested that Libby had been “discussing something . . . that could lead to people being killed.”
… nothing at the trial even hinted at the administration having manipulated intelligence.
… just an hour before delivering its verdict, after 10 days of deliberations, the jurors were sending out notes trying to figure out precisely what Libby was accused of having done.
…Taken at face value, the verdict means that the jury refused to believe Scooter Libby’s claim of having a bad memory - though the witnesses against him all showed equally bad, even conflicting, recollections about the same event.
Libby’s lawyers yesterday confidently predicted he’ll be vindicated on appeal.
He shouldn’t have to wait.
President Bush should make things right - by pardoning Libby.
Sure, he’d take a lot of political heat for it. But Libby was in the dock because of politics - and turnabout is fair play.
Free Scooter Libby.”</p>

<p>So Scooter Libby doesn’t have a perfect memory? This is criminal? Perhaps it is clearer now why Bill Clinton can’t seem to answer any question posed to him under oath without “to the best of my recollection” qualifying it.</p>

<p>Scooter Libby, like Martha Stewart, was found guilty of lying to investigators investigating a non-crime. Lessons learned? Don’t talk to anyone with a badge absent a lawyer.</p>

<p>The only one in this case who has knowingly, intentionally and maliciously lied has been Wilson. There is no issue of faulty memory there. Yet he has gained fame and fortune from his lying which started this whole mess. </p>

<p>When will he get his due?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Lessons learned? Don’t talk to anyone with a badge absent a lawyer.

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I think the lessons learned will be more far-reaching than this. With the criminalization of politics, anyone with any smarts will never go into public service when they can make a lot more in the private sector.</p>

[mini]

<p>I’m glad Dickie is donating his stock options to “charity”. (His cronies aren’t. ;))</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>He still made out like a bandit, our Cheney. </p>

<p>Despite the mayhem he has caused, he’ll send Libby to jail, while he laughs all the way to the bank.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>The Rupert Murdock Rag, the NYPost, and Fox notwithstanding, there was plenty of evidence during the Grand Jury testimony that Cheney declassified material with the express purpose of having it leaked to the press. Cheney didn’t bother to tell the CIA or Valerie Plame that he was declassifying the information- but that’s another story.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07cheney.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1173237959-RjLiW7oEWWUsa4ET6jsGaA[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07cheney.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1173237959-RjLiW7oEWWUsa4ET6jsGaA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Libby testifying to a grand jury that Mr. Cheney had asked Mr. Bush to declassify an intelligence report selectively so he, Mr. Libby, could leak it to sympathetic reporters. Mr. Cheney?s hand-written scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including the one that hinted Mr. Cheney believed that his own staffer, Mr. Libby, was being sacrificed.

</p>

<p>There was also direct testimony from Matt Cooper regarding Rove’s intent
for Cooper to run with the story to discredit Wilson. </p>

<p>

On Friday, July 11, 2003 Cooper called Karl Rove. “Don’t get too far out on Joe Wilson,” said Rove. “Some info will be coming out. Like his wife. She worked on WMD for the Agency. I’ve already said too much.”

There were many witnesses and much testimony from reporters and even Libby’s assistant during the trial, much of which peeled back the inner workings of the WH. After reading one juror’s account of the proceedings, I can certainly understand why they were asking, “Where’s Rove? Where’s Armitage?” They clearly believed Scooter took the fall.,
The administration apologists can spin this all they want. Blame the Bush appointed Rupublican and highly respected Fitzgerald for prosecuting - it doesn’t change the facts.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Blame the Bush appointed Rupublican and highly respected Fitzgerald for prosecuting - it doesn’t change the facts.

</p>

<p>Which “facts” are you talking about? The fact that Plame was originally outed by Armitage, not Libby and not Cheney? The fact that Plame did not meet the definition of a covert agent? The fact that telling the truth about someone who is out to defame you and undermine your policy by spreading lies is not dirty politics? The fact that an administration making selective leaks to the press is an age-old custom practiced by ALL administrations?</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

The fact that an administration making selective leaks to the press is an age-old custom practiced by ALL administrations?

</p>

<p>For an Administration that has so assiduously pursued leakers from within the bureaucracy that divulge information counter to the President’s political strategies (and in some cases reality), it’s hypocritical for this Administration to claim it’s okay when it favors them. </p>

<p>Oh, and FF, you must be the only person on the planet still haranguing that Armitage was the ONLY source of the leaks. Yes, he’s the one who told Novak. Novak is but one journalist-opinion writer.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>It doesn’t matter if there was one or 20 leakers, the point is that no laws were being broken since Plame does not meet the qualification of a covert agent. Once this was established, everything else was just a political witch hunt.</p>

<p>Not only were no laws broken, but the intent of the leaks was one to bring light of truth on someone who was out using the media to spread scurrilous lies about the administration. That is hardly a “dishonorable” leak in my mind.</p>