<p>
</p>
<p>Slick, sorry, but you’re misinformed again. The judge kept the prosecution from making the argument.</p>
<p>The judge ruled that presenting information about Plame’s covert status would prejudice the jury against Libby and that the jury didn’t need the information to decide whether Libby was guilty of the counts he was charged with. The prosecution would have presented it had they been allowed.</p>
<p>I am appalled by the “we are just victims here” attitude of people who are saying that Libby was convicted of merely superficial crimes. A jury of his peers found that he lied intentionally in the course of a special investigation about a matter pertaining to the outing of an undercover agent, and in itself this constitutes an convictable crime. </p>
<p>Putting aside for a moment the facts of her being undercover and what that implies in the law, her career was destroyed. There was a chorus of folks who joined in from within the Administration to see that she was outed. Ari Fleischer was, for one, clear that he tried to interest the media in what she did at the behest of others. And the purpose, quite clearly, was to discredit her husband. The clear result, anyway, is that a person’s life is completely upended and an experienced CIA operative is rendered useless.</p>
<p>And Lewis Libby actively sought to spread disinformation about what happened. For that, he deserves to go to prison – though he won’t because he’ll get pardoned after an appeal.</p>
<p>If a murder had apparently been committed and the central player in the drama of this murder told lies that were clearly identifiable as such, no one would be doubting that he should be held up on obstruction charges. They would assume he’s hiding something from someone, something that indicates his involvement or that of others around him. If the murder had actually been unintentional manslaughter, there would still be justifiable obstruction charges; the true nature of what happened would be unidentifiable because a key witness wasn’t telling the truth.</p>
<p>Here is a useful definition:</p>
<p>"Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.</p>
<p>Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person who is questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court) It is not relevant if the person lied to protect a suspect (such as setting up a false alibi, even if the suspect is in fact innocent) or to hide from an investigation of their own activities (such as to hide their involvement in another crime). Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if they were under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence."</p>
<p>These seem like pretty clear standards to me. Now we have a bunch of whiners putting forward this claim, never supported by standards in law, that one can’t prosecute someone for obstruction of justice if one has no proof an underlying crime was committed. Gee, it almost sounds like a “it depends what the definition of is is” defense, but it’s actually not nearly that vague. It’s really quite clear: obstruction is obstruction.</p>
<p>In this case, furthermore, it is pretty clear that there was a campaign to out Valerie Plame. But we’ll never know, in the adjudicated by a trial of peers sense of knowing – and the true initiator/s of that campaign will never have to pay for it. That is, in fact, the real crime.</p>
<p>I see this as a turning point in the conservative movement. Where hundereds of thousands of fellow travelers stage sit-ins and block the entrences to their own companies and country clubs, and in unison singing…</p>
<p>“We shall undeeeercommmee, we shall undercome some day”</p>
<p>And burining thier stock options, to boot!</p>
<p>Hello. People. If she just had a desk job at Langley, why was she working for a ficticious front company?</p>
<p>Does Karl Rove get to decide which CIA employees his smear maching can and cannot out?</p>
<p>I’ve never seen such blatant disregard for the rule of law. Everytime I hear these people carry on about terrorriisses and nucular mushroom clouds I want to puke. They outed a CIA specialist in Mid East proliferation because they wanted to punish her husband. How can you defend these thugs?</p>
<p>citygirlsmom …don’t think anyone ever died doing oral sex, but, could be wrong </p>
<p>you are wrong some years back Nelson Rockefeller did</p>
<p>You say .Actually, the CIA filled out a form that asks the Justice Department to investigate the disclosure of classified information. </p>
<p>I am not sure that is true, my memory is that the CIA asked for an investigation into the outing of one of their agents. In any event a grand jury was called and Libby lied to it, for which he has been found guilty.</p>
<p>You say …That’s a long way from claiming someone violated the IIPA and outed a covert agent, much less proof they had.</p>
<p>All I said was The CIA thought it was a crime to out her and asked the Justste Department to begin a criminal investigation. You have just changed the level of the question you now are asking that the CIA have proof that someone outed a covert agent before the investigation into the outing begins that not how criminal investigations work, but changing the level of the question it is an old debating trick used when your facts dont meet your needs… </p>
<p>The facts are, for what ever reason, a grand jury was called, Libby testified before the grand jury, Libby was accused of lying to the grand jury, Libby has been found guilty of lying to the grand jury by a separate jury of his peers and in accordance with the laws of the United States, and is now awaiting sentencing.</p>
<p>Strick11 …</p>
<p>You say .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>No with Libby facing jail time Fitz has an even better hand to play …</p>
<p>You say … if Fitz hasn’t gotten a conviction on someone, what ever the reason, they’re innocent </p>
<p>I absolutely agree</p>
<p>Quick points as I have work to do. It was prosecution filings that lead to the judge’s ruling that Mrs. Wilson’s status was not to be addressed by the trial. The defense argued it was and was all set to challenge it. Fitz argued against introducing evidence on her status because he said it was not relevant to the case. The judge agreed. It was after the trial, during sentencing that he made claims about her status when they could not be challenged </p>
<p>I’ve seen the document the CIA filed to start this, it’s available on the web. It’s a general form that talks about unauthorized release of classified information and never mentions IIPA or “outing” anyone. That’s all the Justice Department was asked to investigate and it alone proves nothing. Given the level of leaks that came from the CIA over the last 6 years, that form must get a lot of use even if it’s rare for the Justice Department to actually follow up.</p>
<p>At least as I understand it, Libby is sentenced. He’s going to appeal, but there’s nothing that Fitz can do to directly affect the time Libby’s going to spend in jail expect to show up a his probation hearings. Fitz no longer has any leverage.</p>
<p>One final thing. Libby lied under oath, a jury said so, at least for now. At least until we hear from the appeals court, he’s guilty and the system needs to deal with him as such. No arguments on that.</p>
<p>fundingfather…</p>
<p>Libby was convicted of lying to the grand jury……the grand jury was trying to find out if the law was broken or not. I repeat….Libby was convicted of lying to the grand jury. Definitions of covert or not covert are irrelevant to the issue of Libby’s guilt or not …. Libby was convicted of lying to the grand jury….</p>
<p>
Congratulations. You see my point. Now try to convince Conyat and ID that Libby was not convicted nor charged with anything other than perjury. (And try to stop ID from getting the gallows ready for the lynching.)</p>
<p>"I am appalled by the “we are just victims here” attitude of people who are saying that Libby was convicted of merely superficial crimes. "</p>
<p>He was convicted of a superficial crime, but a crime nonetheless and that is a serious thing. I think 30 months is excessive, but that was for the judge to decide and he did, so . . . I also think that Ms. Plame’s husband had much to do with her being “outed” in the first place. It’s also true that, while Mr. Libby committed a crime, I would very much like to know what Sandy Berger too, and why. That whole “two things can be true at once” thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, two things can be true at once. I have no opinion on what Sandy Berger did, though if people maintain it was problematic, it should be examined. </p>
<p>However, “superficial” and “serious” are mutually exclusive with respect to the description of a crime. Two things can be true at the same time, but two mutually exclusive things can’t be true about the same thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? I am curious why you believe this. Is this because he took a trip to Niger? Because he wrote the editorial?</p>
<p>fundingfather… It’s a bit arrogant to say I saw your point. It is especially arrogant to congratulate me on seeing your point.</p>
<p>Trying to see your point has been confused by statements from you like “Fitzgerald found absolutely no evidence to even bring charges against ANYONE,” we have no idea what evidence Fitzgerald found. We don’t know if Fitzgerald is waiting till the day VP Cheney becomes a private citizen to indicate him, but some have suggested just that. We don’t know if Fitzgerald needs Libby’s testimony to indicate Cheney, but some have suggested that he does. We don’t know a lot of things about what went on in the grand jury and the prosecutor’s office. You don’t make points you make polemics, lines like, “getting the gallows ready for the lynching” and the other BS coming from you.</p>
<p>Now what is you point? Well let me tell you what it appears to be from reading you comments. Your point appears to be, there was no underlining crime proven so it is unfair to indicted and convict Libby for lying to the grand jury. I will be interested to read what you think of my effort to distill your point into one short and clear statement.</p>
<p>
You’ll have to pardon me if I suggest this seems more than a bit coy. </p>
<p>You have no opinion…? </p>
<p>I’ll go out on a limb and say that I suspect you would rather not have an opinion than that you actuall lack an opinion on Sandy.</p>
<p>Would I be close?</p>
<p>"However, “superficial” and “serious” are mutually exclusive with respect to the description of a crime. "</p>
<p>You didn’t catch my meaning (probably I wasn’t clear). If one stipulates that a crime WAS, in fact, committed you are at serious in terms of the grand scheme. But in terms of the specific universe of crimes, Libby’s was not a particularly serious one.</p>
<p>I think that by making himself a public spectacle and having his wife’s identify readily-available was not a good thing for her confidentiality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I honestly didn’t follow the particulars of what he did. He put something in his pocket. That’s what I know. If it was a crime and compromises national security, it should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted and it wasn’t.</p>
<p>Don’t read any more into it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Blame the victim: her husband took a visible position on a topic that’s turned out to be of huge concern to our nation, so it’s her fault. There are plenty of people who get around in Washington who have a cover; it doesn’t mean they have to be hermits.</p>
<p>“That’s what I know. If it was a crime and compromises national security, it should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted and it wasn’t.”</p>
<p>He pled guilty and then surrendered his law license so that he could avoid investigation. I didn’t blame Ms. Plame, I blamed her husband. I thought I was clear on that.</p>
<p>Um, does no one here get what Plame did as a covert agent? She wasn’t a ninja type invisible spy</p>
<p>She had a cover job, she reported back to the CIA, there were front companies with other “employees”- she was a public figure in that regard, but her “job” wasn’t as it appeared</p>
<p>Do some of you think that spies are all in black, scaling the outside of buildings? No, some are folks that look like they have one job, when in fact, they are doing something else</p>
<p>As for Wilson, Bush Sr. called him a hero, during the first Iraq war, was he against the Bush’s then, or just perhaps, he was correct about his reporting, no wait, he WAS correct!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you missed the connection to the original polemic from your fellow Swatty, ID:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that polemic BS in your book, or, because it comes from one of your teammates, is it perfectly acceptable rhetoric? Just wondering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Teammates? He/she has teammates?</p>
<p>In most cases, there are certainly posters whose opinions I line up more readily with than others, but that doesn’t mean there is a vast left wing conspiracy.</p>
<p>I have noticed, FF, you are on the team that avoids topics that don’t fall neatly into obvious talking points. </p>
<p>What do you think about the surge now? Good idea? Working? No idea? New path needed? I am really curious. The talking points are being developed, but you don’t have to follow them. What do YOU think?</p>