<p>fundingfather …You say….Fitzgerald found absolutely no evidence to even bring charges against ANYONE…</p>
<p>we don’t know that to be true…what we do know is that Fitzgerald did not find enough evidence to bring charges….what we absolutely do know is that Libby was convicted of the crime of lying to a grand jury….</p>
<p>What we don’t know is if Libby when faced with jail time will decide to corporate with the prosecution and give testimony of criminal activity on the part of others in the White House. Testimony that would then give Mr. Fitzgerald the evidence he needs to bring charges on the question of “outing” a CIA agent. As we have seen in other criminal activity, particularly mob related crime, convicting someone on a lesser charge to get them to “turn” is an established prosecutorial tactic. </p>
<p>I feel sure this very subject is being discussed in whispered tones in the White House this very day.</p>
<p>I just love how whenever a republican gets in trouble, the BJ is discussed…every single time…and yes he lied, and well, in good concious that the congress said, no it was not enough, imagine that</p>
<p>don’t think anyone ever died doing oral sex, but, could be wrong</p>
<p>don’t know about anyone dying from doing oral sex, but lots of people have died needlessly 'cause George HW and Barbara didn’t pursue that option one fateful night many years ago.</p>
<p>Let’s try to put ideologyand talking points aside for a moment. Hard as that might be.
First, I think it is becoming clear that there was no underlying crime - outing Valerie Plame was not a crime based on her status. Fitzgerald will not be bringing any further charges. Count on that.
But that said, Libby was not tried for that crime. He was tried for perjury. He was convicted. He should serve time. And I know Clinton lied also, but who cares anymore?
But the sentence seems wholly excessive in light of the sum of the man’s life and the nature of the crime.
My personal opinion is that this was such a minor issue in the scope of Libby’s duties, that it is quite possible he didn’t lie - and actually forgot. If I were tried for lying everytime I misstated something because I had forgotten or misremembered a conversation or the sequence of conversations, I’d have been executed by now. But that’s a personal opinion and doesn’t overcome the fact that a jury thought otherwise.
It will be interesting to see if the conviction survives appeal. If it does, he will be pardoned. Count on that too.</p>
<p>Actually, the CIA filled out a form that asks the Justice Department to investigate the disclosure of classified information. That’s a long way from claiming someone violated the IIPA and outed a covert agent, much less proof they had.</p>
<p>The simple truth is that what the Agency calls “covert” isn’t the same as the highly restrictive definition of covert the law requires. Combining that restrictive definition with the need to prove that the person outing the agent knew they were agents and intentionally outed them, makes it pretty darned hard to get a conviction under the statute. Liberal concerns on infringing someone right to free speech basically neutered the law.</p>
<p>But doing the right thing is very different from it being hard to convict someone for violating a law. That’s why I think what Richard Armitage, vocal critic of the Iraq War, did in outing Mrs. Wilson is inexcusable.</p>
<p>As is Libby’s lying about what happened. Repeating gossip about someone to reporters? Lord, if that’s a crime, they’ll need to turn the whole of DC into a prison.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I thought the lesson of Whitewater and Ken Starr’s attempts to get Clinton associates to testify against them is that sometimes, just sometimes, there isn’t anything illegal to testify to. At least that’s that everyone critical of the investigation Clinton tells me. Like McDougal, if Libby was going to turn and testify against someone, he’d have done it well before he was sentenced and Fitz lost the last bit of leverage he had over him. Don’t you agree? </p>
<p>And the last I heard, if Fitz hasn’t gotten a conviction on someone, what ever the reason, they’re innocent, just like the Clintons are innocent of any wrong doing in regards to Whitewater.</p>
<p>Do any of the Bush supporters here remember when Valerie Plame was first outed and Bush said that when he found out who was responsible for the leak he would fire them? I’m pretty sure I heard him say that. (I guess he forgot to consult with Cheney first.) Why was it a Bad Thing, until he found out who did it?</p>
<p>Strick, you do understand that that was a contempt of court citation? And that judges can issue contempt of court citations whether they think the person is guilty of any other crime or not? They even issue them to lawyers, court transcriptionists, etc. It doesn’t even have to be the defendant.</p>
<p>Contempt of court is entirely separate from perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Clinton was most emphatically found not guilty on those.</p>
<p>For the nth time, he was NOT found not guilty of those in a criminal court. He was being “tried” in the Senate where the ruling was being based on what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”. By being found “not guilty” they just concluded that those crimes did not constitute what the constitution mandated for removal from office. If you doubt that, look at what the senators themselves said in terms of why they voted the way they did.</p>
<p>But, of course that doesn’t fit with your agenda so you will still emphatically repeat nonsense.</p>
<p>Interesting. I’d never heard of a lawyer losing his license over a contempt charge. Of course, you may also remember that just after Clinton left office it was announced he wasn’t going to be prosecuted for the perjury, not because they couldn’t get a conviction (Clinton was obviously guilty as sin), but because it was decided the nation didn’t need the wear and tear of the prosecution of a former President. Nice. (And I admit I never put the two together. Thanks for explaining.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually I’ve read the transcripts of the two times this came up. Bush said he’d fire anyone involved in “this”, which in context was the leak of classified information in the first case and he was more explicit about firing anyone who committed a crime in the matter in the second. Those comments have been, ah, adjusted to the shorter version you quote. </p>
<p>As it stands, the only person responsible for “the leak” is Richard Armitage who never worked for the White House and is no longer in government. </p>
<p>There’s considerable contention as to the degree that Rove provided confirmation to the rumor the leak started in two minor conversations he participated in (Lord knows Cooper’s notes can’t be counted on to confirm anything he says) and as far as I know, no one still in the Administration has been accused of a crime in the matter. </p>
<p>Libby, as I’m sure you know, resigned when he was indicted.</p>
<p>let’s see lying over adultry vs. lying over an CIA agent…</p>
<p>Yup, they seem pretty equal to debate in my eyes. </p>
<p>Let’s see which one should only tick off somebody’s wife and really not matter to America? And which one in these “dangerous times” (what color is the threat chart today? ) lets down the American people? </p>
<p>Not a big fan of BC, but c’mon guys, get serious here.</p>
<p>So you obviously didn’t click on the PDF that was provided by ID, in post #23, showing all of the different leakers in the Bush administration. </p>
<p>Why not read it and decide for yourself? Not even Libby is clinging to the “only Armitage” talking point.</p>
<p>there’s an old saying related to lawyers that seems to apply these days to the remaining bush backers - if the law isn’t on your side, argue the facts; if the facts aren’t on your side, argue the law; if neither is on your side just start screaming bull *****; and this administration does alot of that sreamin’.</p>
<p>You got cheney still claiming there were WMD’s, bush seems to forget that he swore heads would roll for whoever “outed” Mrs. Wilson (and W really does play the perfect Dennis the Menace to his old neighbors the Wilsons), but now she really wasn’t a covert agent so there was no crime in “outing” our own intelligence agents, oh wait, yes she was covert…</p>
<p>this administration can no longer keep its own lies straight and the scooter is going down as the one clown who finally got caught in court with his pants on fire (liar, liar). Little georgie sure don’t like them courts. He can try to stack the Supremes and fire U.S. Attorneys but try as he will, he hasn’t been able to destroy the entire court system, so chalk up one for that branch, well at least until the pardon comes down.</p>
<p>The CIA says Valerie was covert at the time of the outing.</p>
<p>Are we supposed to believe that the CIA is too incompetent even to know what their own employees are up to or what their job title is? If that were the case, it makes an even bigger case for this administration being record-breakingly incompetent. It’s ridiculous. Anyone still spouting this rubbish is so firmly entrenched in the anti-empiricist camp there’s nought that can be done.</p>
<p>conyat, please read what others post. I know it gets in the way of your message but it might be illuminating (should you ever decide to open your eyes for illumination). The fact that the CIA says that Plame was covert has NOTHING to do with whether a law was broken or not. The defintion of covert as defined by the law is NOT the same as that of the CIA. </p>
<p>Besides, how “covert” was she if a reporter can call up to verify her employment and they readily cooperate with him. You’re grasping at very weak straws here.</p>
<p>Let me clarify. The CIA says that Plame was covert AND covered by the law. They were the ones who referred the matter for criminal investigation.</p>
<p>Now do you get it? Or are you seriously going to suggest that they are too incompetent to know whether she was covered or not?</p>
<p>Let me clarify - even Fitzgerald knew that he couldn’t make a case that a law was broken - despite what the CIA claimed. The last I checked, the CIA was not a court of law - so, yes, they clearly were not competent to know if a law was broken or not. To rephrase your question, do you think that Fitzgerald was so incompetent that he couldn’t make a case for a law to have been broken? Do you think the evidence was there, but he was just oblivious to it?</p>
<p>That’s why a case couldn’t be made, and why Libby was convicted for his hand in denying justice to the people of the United States. Had Libby been an honest man, justice would have been done. Of course, had Libby been an honest man, he wouldn’t have been in a position to be involved in outing a covert operative to begin with.</p>
<p>Same, except the bit about serving overseas, which is commented on by a CIA-insider, as follows:</p>
<p>Early in November 2005, posting in his own personal blog No Quarter, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson responds further to the ongoing dispute about Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA Non-Official Cover operative:</p>
<p>“There is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person “served” overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed. . .”</p>
<p>FF, I guess national security is always of paramount importance, and when we say national security what we are really saying is the security of members of the Republican Party over and above that of covert operative assets or anybody else.</p>
<p>I’m given to believe there are strong legal arguments that contradict that interpretation including those made by people who actually wrote the law and know what it’s meant to say. For instance, when I travel overseas for work, no one claims I “served” overseas if I was only there a few days. A recent analysis of Mrs. Wilson’s retirement benefits strongly suggests she wan’t given the credit she would have received if the CIA thought those trips constituted “serving” overseas. </p>
<p>Johnson’s a partisan in this and in no way an attorney. I realize that Fitz made the same argument, but one attorney arguing it unchallenged in a filing doesn’t make it the correct interpretation of the law. He was darned careful not to make the argument when it could be challenged in court.</p>
<p>Oh, and I’m not arguing that Armitage was the only who talked about Mrs. Wilson. What I’m saying is that it wasn’t until after he leaked the information that anyone actually in the Administration discussed it with reporters. The IIPA doesn’t cover minor comments (“yeah, I heard that too” and “don’t get too far out on that story”) on rumors the press already has.</p>
</p>