Poll: Will anyone be indicted over Plamegate? [Archive]

Aurelian

10-26-2005, 06:00

Oh, but it matters, it matters!

First off, a round of indictments will make me very happy. ~D

Secondly, if the weasels in the White House are turning on each other and expending all their time and mental energy defending themselves against perjury, conspiracy, or other charges... then they have less time to figure out how to ruin the country.

Thirdly, if indictments come down it will give reporters carte blanche to talk about the White House Iraq Group, doctored intelligence, and all the fun nooks and crannies of Bushite misdeeds.

Fourth, some indictments in the Plame case would go wonderfully with a plate of Jack Abramoff, a side of Tom Delay, and a glass of Bill Frist. Once those various scandals are public knowledge, just about the whole Republican power structure will have been tainted in one way or another.

Now, I agree that a lot of Americans are dumbasses. There was just a poll saying that over 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution. That's probably the same 50% that voted for Bush. However, if more people find out about the sleazy way the Republican leadership works, and they connect it with the crappy war we have going, the borrow and spend economic policies, and the massive levels of incompetence... then some of them might wake up and change their mind come the next election.

Let's hope that we can all say "Merry Fitzmas!" sometime this week. ~:cheers:

Xiahou

10-26-2005, 06:07

Let's hope that we can all say "Merry Fitzmas!" sometime this week. ~:cheers:Wow, somebody reads their liberal blogs. ~;)

I'm not really expecting any indictments... If anything, maybe they'll muster a perjury or obstruction of justice indictment against Scooter- depends if the NYT is full of crap or not. :shrug:

I'd love to see Wilson indicted for lying to Congress... but Im not really expecting it... at all ~D

Aurelian

10-26-2005, 06:30

By the way, I don't think I can even take the survey because so much depends on who rolls over for the prosecutor. It looks like most of the attention at the moment is focused on the Vice President's office. A couple of Cheney's aides are actively cooperating with Fitzgerald.

The VP himself could very well be a target. Even Bush could become an "unindicted co-conspirator" ala Nixon during Watergate. Recent stories made it clear that while Bush was claiming not to know who leaked the information, and was expressing his desire to the public to 'get to the bottom of the matter', Rove had already told the president that he, and presumably others on his staff, had been involved!

Libby and Rove both were called before the grand jury repeatedly. It does seem as if they changed their story at different times and were called back to "clarify" their previous statements. That could leave them both open to perjury or obstruction of justice charges.

The same is true of Judy Miller. She conveniently seemed to have "forgotten" about an early conversation she had with Scooter Libby regarding Plame... until she was reminded by Fitzgerald who was able to wave in her face the Secret Service paperwork recording the date and time of their meeting. Only then did she dig out her notes of the session.

Again, so much depends on things that we can't know at the moment: deals, perjury traps, just how much paperwork the White House managed to shred before Fitzgerald could get his hands on it... ~D

I'm almost certain though that there will be some indictments. The leaks that there have been all point in that direction. The fact that Fitzgerald just put up a website also seems to indicate that he isn't prepared to shut down his operation just yet.

Hopefully, there will be some super-sexy indictments having to do with national security statutes, but I'll be happy with anything that will hold these guys accountable for the way they vindictively and maliciously "rat___" anybody that stands up to them.

One of the joys of this case is that the White House made a bunch of stupid denials and outright lies early on because they assumed that, as a Justice Department matter, Ashcroft would make sure that nothing ever came of the investigation. Luckily for us, the Justice Department prosecutors were so alarmed at the kinds of things that were being said, and the cavalier way Rove was handling the issue that they pressured Ashcroft to recuse himself from the case and appoint Fitzgerald. Of course, the CIA played a crucial role in pressing the issue as well. It would be nice to see the serious career professionals win a victory over the Mayberry Machiavellis on this one.

~:cheers:

Hurin_Rules

10-26-2005, 17:07

I voted for Libby, but I think this could well draw in many others: Cheney, Miller, possibly even the president.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-26-2005, 17:25

I'd love to see Wilson indicted for lying to Congress... but Im not really expecting it... at all

Well he is the only one here who should be indicted. Now wouldnt that be a hoot. American justice at its best.

Xiahou

10-26-2005, 18:47

I say we chuck em all in jail, and beat every member of congress and the senate over the head with a shoe until they resign. Then start fresh.

:elephant:
2 words- term limits. ~:)

Aurelian

10-26-2005, 22:18

Well, I thought today might be Fitzmas, but it looks as if the grand jury went home for the day. There was a suggestion that there might be some indictments announced this afternoon with a press conference tomorrow, but it now looks like they might hold off until tomorrow or Friday.

Anyway, here are some of today's Fitzmas-related news goodies:

According to "Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/)", Fitzgerald tried to cut a deal with Rove (probably yesterday) where he would plead guilty to perjury in exchange for a reduced sentence, and not be charged with obstruction of justice. Rove reportedly turned that deal down. If true, that means that Fitzgerald will undoubtedly be going for a Rove indictment... probably on perjury and obstruction charges... possibly more.

They also reported that the prosecutor will be asking the grand jury to indict Scooter Libby on perjury, obstruction of justice, and knowingly outing a covert operative. Apparently two other (non-White House) officials are also facing charges.

Richard Sale (http://www2.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/26/105036/84) (whose reporting has apparently been very reliable) also had some interesting material:

1) Fitzgerald has apparently gone to the presiding judge and asked him to extend the grand jury process. It appears that he has a number of other targets in his sights, and he intends to continue the investigation.

2) "Federal law enforcement officers" suggested to Sale that "Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson's civil rights, smearing his name in an attempt to destroy his ability to earn a living in Washington as a consultant... The civil rights charge is said to include "the conspiracy was committed using U.S. government offices, buildings, personnel and funds," one federal law enforcement official said... Other charges could include possible violations of U.S. espionage laws, including the mishandling of U.S. classified information, these sources said."

3) It looks as if Cheney has been the center of a lot of attention. The White House has apparently received very detailed "questionaires" trying to pin Cheney down on what he knew and when he knew it.

Another little detail today... apparently the prosecution has been going door-to-door in the Wilson's neighborhood and asking all of their friends and neighbors whether they had any knowledge of Plame's job or covert status. It would appear that they are trying to clear up the (occasionally argued) notion that her status was "common knowledge". The quotes from her neighbors suggested that her career was not common knowledge amongst her neighborhood friends. LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=Apz0GAJGqJA281QRjM9koi6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

Hurin_Rules

10-27-2005, 21:00

Gawain of Orkeny

10-28-2005, 01:38

Looks like we'll have to wait till Friday, but it is almost certain now that Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury to produce indictments.

Washington is on tip-toes waiting for this. Should be very, very interesting.

And if friday comes and theres still no indicments then what? You liberals have been on tip toes ever since this came out. Your like a bunch of kids waiting for santa to arrive with your christmas present. What will you do if he leaves nothing but a clump of coal?

Hurin_Rules

10-28-2005, 03:42

And if friday comes and theres still no indicments then what? You liberals have been on tip toes ever since this came out. Your like a bunch of kids waiting for santa to arrive with your christmas present. What will you do if he leaves nothing but a clump of coal?

The grand jury is set to expire tomorrow, that's why everyone is concentrating on it.

If nothing comes of it, fine. We'll just have to wait another year till the Democrats take back congress and we can finally have independent investigations of all of these matters.

The tone of this post has been reasonably civil up to now, and I hope you won't poison it Gawain.

Redleg

10-28-2005, 03:52

Hurin_Rules

10-28-2005, 04:56

But if anyone thinks Fitzgerald did not at least give an honest effort, is only fooling themselves.

As one article states - investigators don't go canvasing the neighborhood of the victim if they are just giving the investigation lip-service.

That's what I think too, Redleg. I will be very surprised if nothing at all comes of this.

I guess we'll just have to wait till tomorrow to see :)

Redleg

10-28-2005, 05:08

That's what I think too, Redleg. I will be very surprised if nothing at all comes of this.

I guess we'll just have to wait till tomorrow to see :)

Yep - it should be an interesting day in the media -

Aurelian

10-28-2005, 05:20

And if friday comes and theres still no indicments then what? You liberals have been on tip toes ever since this came out. Your like a bunch of kids waiting for santa to arrive with your christmas present. What will you do if he leaves nothing but a clump of coal?

Then we'll weep softly and turn our attention back to Delay, Frist, Abramoff, and that Noe guy who just got indicted in Ohio (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/BREAKINGNEWS/51027023). ~D

But luckily, since we've been good little boys and girls this year, I think Saint Fitzolas is going to leave us a bunch of nicely wrapped indictments (with little bows on them) under the Fitzmas Tree. ~D

Red Harvest

10-28-2005, 05:27

My thoughts on this particuler subject is wait and see. There is enough waffling and mashing of teeth on the issue coming from the White House staff that something might actually be in the works. Will someone be indicted over the outing - is something that one must wait for on baited breath.
I didnt' really think the investigation was going to go that far, unless there was a cover up. From the outside there sure appears to be one.

There was a change in poise of the whole administration about a week to 10 days after Katrina. While I thought the Katrina backlash might have been the reason, I also wondered if something else big was afoot. What I've heard so far suggests there was a whole lot more going on here. But there is not much hard to go on. Hence, wait and see.

The difference is the change in tone of the administration, and attempts by GOP functionaries to distance themselves, even before Miers. And where the heck is Cheney? He hasn't been this invisible in a long time. Last time I saw him in the news was when someone in Mississippi hurled a "Go .... yourself Mr. Cheney."

Lots of smoke, but is there fire?

Hurin_Rules

10-28-2005, 17:49

Libby has just been indicted. More in a minute.

Hurin_Rules

10-28-2005, 17:51

Top Cheney aide Libby indicted
Lawyer for Bush confidant Rove says his client is safe for now

BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services
Updated: 12:46 p.m. ET Oct. 28, 2005
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was indicted Friday on five charges that include obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in the investigation into the leak of a covert CIA agent’s name.

The indictment could trigger a shake-up at the White House, already on the defensive over the response to Hurricane Katrina, opposition to the Iraq war and the withdrawal of President Bush’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.

Details were to be outlined at 2 p.m. ET, when Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will hold a press conference at the Justice Department. The grand jury that handed up the indictment had been hearing the case for nearly two years and its term expires Friday.

Fitzgerald and his investigators have been trying to determine whether Libby or any other administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators. Her husband is diplomat Joseph Wilson, an opponent of the Iraq war who challenged Bush’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was trying to secure nuclear materials.

Libby is considered Cheney’s alter ego, a chief architect of the war with Iraq. Any trial of Libby would give the public a rare glimpse into Cheney’s influential role in the West Wing and his behind-the-scenes lobbying for war.

Though he has worked in relative obscurity, Libby is one of the administration’s influential advisers because of his proximity to Cheney, one of the most powerful vice presidents in history.

The leak case has put a spotlight on the sometimes aggressive tactics the White House uses to counter critics of the Iraq war. It has also focused attention on the administration’s shifting justifications for the 2003 invasion, from the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- which were never found -- to a need to spread democracy.

Rove’s situation
Presidential confidant Karl Rove is also being investigated, but his lawyer said he was not being indicted, at least for now.

“The Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and that Mr. Rove’s status has not changed,” Robert Luskin said in a statement Friday. “Mr. Rove will continue to cooperate fully with the Special Counsel’s efforts to complete the investigation. We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong.”

The lack of an indictment against Rove is a mixed outcome for the administration. It keeps in place the president’s top adviser, the architect of his political machine whose fingerprints can be found on virtually every policy that emerges from the White House.

But leaving Rove in legal jeopardy keeps Bush and his team working on problems like the Iraq war, a Supreme Court vacancy and slumping poll ratings beneath a dark cloud of uncertainty.

When the investigation began two years ago, a White House spokesman checked with Rove and Libby, then assured the public that neither was involved in leaking Plame’s name.

But in the past month, it was revealed that Libby spoke to New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who says their conversations included Plame’s CIA status.

On July 7, the president told reporters that if anyone in his administration committed a crime in connection with the leak, that person “will no longer work in my administration.” Weeks later, he backpedaled from that assertion.

Rove’s legal problems stem in part from the fact that he failed initially to disclose to prosecutors a conversation in which he told Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA. The president’s top political adviser says the conversation slipped his mind.

Columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame’s name and her CIA status on July 14, 2003. That was five days after Novak talked to Rove and eight days after Wilson published an opinion article in the Times accusing the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq.

Wilson and his supporters have charged the leak of Plame’s name, which ended her ability to work undercover for the CIA, was designed to discredit him and punish him for his criticism and intimidate others inside the government critical of Bush’s Iraq policies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9837835/

Well Gawain, I guess Christmas has come to liberals after all. ~:cool:

Goofball

10-28-2005, 17:57

Well, I'm glad I waited to vote. I vote Libby!

Haha!

I got it right!

Xiahou

10-28-2005, 19:34

Just shows that honesty is the best policy I guess- if Libby had been consistent and kept his story straight, nothing would have come of this.

As a side note- I strongly disagree with the idea that lying to the FBI (or any federal agent) is a crime. It's perfectly legal and fine for them to lie to you about evidence, testimony, or anything else they want, but if you get tripped up and say something not true- they nail your ass to the wall.

As a side, side note- I realize that Libby would've still been indicted for lying to the grand jury, which is and should be a crime. :bow:

solypsist

10-28-2005, 19:53

i fully agree.

As a side note- I strongly disagree with the idea that lying to the FBI (or any federal agent) is a crime. It's perfectly legal and fine for them to lie to you about evidence, testimony, or anything else they want, but if you get tripped up and say something not true- they nail your ass to the wall.

Red Harvest

10-28-2005, 20:15

I'm not really expecting any indictments... If anything, maybe they'll muster a perjury or obstruction of justice indictment against Scooter- depends if the NYT is full of crap or not. :shrug:

So does this mean that they are not full of crap?

Now the bets will be on whether there are more to follow. I suspect Rove still has a 50/50 chance of being indicted. With Libby indicted, Cheney is going to get pulled in to testify...so things could get very interesting. A conspiracy charge would not surprise me. If Rove is indicted, then a conspiracy charge would naturally come out of it.

Since Fitz is saying the investigation will continue, I suspect the conspiracy aspect is likely to move to the focus. Seems unlikely that the investigation would continue without further indictments. If anything, indicting one now is likely to shake some more things loose.

Red Harvest

10-28-2005, 20:18

i fully agree.
I disagree, but on the grounds that I don't believe the FBI should be able to lie to or about the accused either. This is a real weakness of our legal system. It is the main reason folks can use to oppose the death penalty: overzealous officers/prosecuters using illegal and/or improper tactics to frame the wrong person. When such cases are revealed, I believe those responsible should be in serious legal jeopardy themselves.

DojoRat

10-28-2005, 20:28

i fully agree.
I guess I'm turning into an old fuddy duddy but I disagree.

You have the right to remain silent.

If one chooses to mislead the FBI as an act of civil disobedience, fine, but if you're not held accountable the act becomes meaningless.

Back to Libby. I just heard Fitzgerald on the Radio and it sounds like he has Libby dead to right for perjury and obstruction. I mean his testimony was so far from the truth (according to the indictment) you have to wonder who was giving Libby leagal advice?

I'm sure somehow the liberal elite is to blame, I just haven't made up the facts yet~;)

Redleg

10-28-2005, 20:51

.

Back to Libby. I just heard Fitzgerald on the Radio and it sounds like he has Libby dead to right for perjury and obstruction. I mean his testimony was so far from the truth (according to the indictment) you have to wonder who was giving Libby leagal advice?

I to listen to Fitzgerald on the radio as I drove to work this afternoon. I think he handled himself well giving what information he could and did a great job on trying to explain the process. I found it rather amusing the number of times reporters tried to get him to given investigation information and possible future charges on people. He handled them well from what I could tell from his voice. I wonder how the video went?

All in all - I would say Fitzgerald is giving it an honest and as open an investigation as he could.

I liked his baseball anology of the umpire getting sand thrown in his face when asked about why it was an obstruction charge and not a leak charge - that was good in my opinion.

DojoRat

10-28-2005, 21:52

Yes I was struck by Fitzgerald as well, he seems like a guy who dots his eyes and crosses his tees (I sound like my old man).

It was less than a year ago that this administration saw itself on top of the world.

Wow what a sea change. And I think it was Katrina that did the damage. The war was becoming unpopular, true, but real opposition to it would only be brought by the left which they felt they could ignore.

The inept response to Katrina (or the perception of it) changed things.
It was ok know to criticize them, there were no troops to support, they were seen as having let Americans down.

The political invulnerability of this administration was broken. Now they can't seem to do anything right.

The Miers nomination is a case in point. Why didn't they run her by the senate before she was named. It's politics 101, if you don't have the votes you don't let it come to a vote.

Of course into this will ride the savior from the Democratic Party, the bold visionary, the champion of the everyman, that great Senator from..... no, no that governor from... no, well, a ... sigh. Never mind

Redleg

10-28-2005, 22:00

Of course into this will ride the savior from the Democratic Party, the bold visionary, the champion of the everyman, that great Senator from..... no, no that governor from... no, well, a ... sigh. Never mind

Yes indeed that will be a problem for the next election cycle - the inablity for the Democratic Party to take advantage of the problems and loss of political pestige the current adminstration and the GOP now must face.

Now we must wait and see how the election cycle goes - it will be a negative campaign season with lots of mud slinging going on. I wonder how many real issues will be presented in the campaigns for the senators up for re-election and the representives who all must go through the cycle again.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-28-2005, 22:40

Geoffrey S

10-28-2005, 22:50

Now we must wait and see how the election cycle goes - it will be a negative campaign season with lots of mud slinging going on. I wonder how many real issues will be presented in the campaigns for the senators up for re-election and the representives who all must go through the cycle again.
This is a prominant aspect of US politics I find distinctly unappealing. Have such practises become noticeably worse relatively recently, or simply more open?

Redleg

10-28-2005, 23:00

This is a prominant aspect of US politics I find distinctly unappealing. Have such practises become noticeably worse relatively recently, or simply more open?

Current track record would indicate that its become more open and worse in content at the same time.

Last election cycle - minus the Presidential election - contained nothing but mudslinging for many of the campaigns that I was watching - ie the ones I voted on.

The Presidential election is a little better - but not by much.

Red Harvest

10-28-2005, 23:09

hisis pretty sad. I was impressed by what a moron Fitz is. There was no crime commited in the first place to even launch ths investigation other than the CIA trying to cover its own butt and ask for one because they messed up and sent Wilson there in the first place. What ever happened to the original charge? Hes guilty of covering up something that wasnt a crime. If had just claimed the 5th he would be safe. This is nothing more than the criminalization of politics.
Sheesh, what a simplistic partisan view. ~:rolleyes: The indictment looks pretty damning to me. Fitz has had trouble getting to the bottom of it because of the cover up. The question is, who all was involved in covering up? Right now it looks like Libby is dead meat. Trying to claim he "forgot" isn't going to work because of his own notes.

On top of that, even if he could successfully make the claim of having forgotten, this was clearly a case of the VP's office (and possibly the Prez) going after someone in govt. with views counter to their own. It is straightforward abuse of power. There has been a pattern of this in the Admin, but with this one they skirted the legal bounds too closely. The question is one of conspiracy, did Cheney or Bush let loose the hounds or was it done independently? I have a hard time believing this was done independently, not with the way this Admin works.

I would like to see charges for the original disclosure issue once the "original leak point" has been identified. Libby appears to have lied about his role, but was he the first? Whoever was first should be charged. Obviously, if it was Libby, then it is problematic because whether or not he lied, it can already be safely said that his testimony was "unreliable." Even if charges concerning the actual NOC revelation don't stand up or are thrown out on a technicality, they could help set a precedent for proving it in the future. EDIT: Was listening to Fitz again and he said Libby was the first in a chain and appeared he was first overall. I would like ot see this further charge pursued.

The biggest hoot is listening to some conservatives claim this is politics and not seeing any corelation with Clinton's technicality. It is the cover up that gets them. The funny part with Clinton's is that it had nothing to do with abuse of power or endangering the country. He merely couldn't keep his fly zipped when a certain intern pursued him. Clinton's situation was made worse by a really non-sensical SCOTUS ruling that it was not an undue burden for a sitting president to defend himself in a civil trial. If any SCOTUS ruling can ever be shown to be 100% incorrect, that one is it.

Hurin_Rules

10-28-2005, 23:12

I to listen to Fitzgerald on the radio as I drove to work this afternoon. I think he handled himself well giving what information he could and did a great job on trying to explain the process. I found it rather amusing the number of times reporters tried to get him to given investigation information and possible future charges on people. He handled them well from what I could tell from his voice. I wonder how the video went?

All in all - I would say Fitzgerald is giving it an honest and as open an investigation as he could.

I liked his baseball anology of the umpire getting sand thrown in his face when asked about why it was an obstruction charge and not a leak charge - that was good in my opinion.

Yes, and he probably looks even better because the only thing we really have to compare him to is Ken Starr--one who was not particularly professional nor effective and who let leaks burst out like popcorn.

Hurin_Rules

10-29-2005, 00:17

LOL, I see that now THREE people have voted for Libby AFTER news of the indictment came out.

Now, at least Goofball was making a joke. What are the other two trying to do, I wonder?

Adrian II

10-29-2005, 00:39

LOL, I see that now THREE people have voted for Libby AFTER news of the indictment came out.I'm voting for Gah! He is guilty as hell. :smug:

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 03:45

Sheesh, what a simplistic partisan view. The indictment looks pretty damning to me.

Thats a simplistic partisan view~D Look if he did what hes accussed of he belongs in jail. Mostly for being a moron and trying to cover up something that he need not have worried about. The guy is a lawyer. The real question is why did he lie?

Reverend Joe

10-29-2005, 03:57

I miss Don Corleone. :embarassed:

ichi

10-29-2005, 05:59

Regardless of the outcome, Mr Fitzgerald has rekindled my faith that there are still decent, honest, hard-working individuals trying to do the right thing, regardless of politics.

Partisan corruption has the potential to bring this country down, and I for one am happy to see a fair process work the way it should.

ichi:bow:

Aurelian

10-29-2005, 06:33

This is pretty sad. I was impressed by what a moron Fitz is. There was no crime commited in the first place to even launch ths investigation other than the CIA trying to cover its own butt and ask for one because they messed up and sent Wilson there in the first place. What ever happened to the original charge? Hes guilty of covering up something that wasnt a crime. If had just claimed the 5th he would be safe. This is nothing more than the criminalization of politics.

Woot! A RNC Talking Point has arrived! "The criminalization of politics".

Short Answer: "Yes, I agree that the criminalization of politics is a terrible thing. Why is the Republican party so full of criminals?"

Longer Answer: "I love it when Republicans use the phrase "the criminalization of politics" because it's so freakin' hypocritical coming from the same party that spent the 90's gleefully trying to find novel ways to use the legal system to disrupt the Clinton presidency."

As for Fitzgerald's indictments: The grand jury was investigating whether a crime took place. That was its job. By lying to the grand jury about the sequence of contacts, and who provided whom with information, Libby made it impossible for the grand jury to do their job properly. Therefore, he should have been, and was, charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

As for no crime being committed... that's just silly. The purpose of the grand jury was to determine if a crime had been committed. Novak revealed Wilson's wife's name and identity as a CIA "operative" in print. Since Plame was a NOC, anyone who knowingly provided that information to Novak was committing a crime. The grand jury's job was to investigate whether anyone knowingly did just that.

Under questioning, Libby repeatedly changed his story. He told the grand jury that he'd first heard of Plame's identity and status from various reporters... and then it was revealed that he had received memos and had discussions about Plame's identity beforehand in various White House communications. Let's not forget that Fitzgerald has the testimony of Novak, Russert, Miller, Hadley, and a host of others to check against Libby's statements. Fitzgerald must feel pretty sure that he's got him, or he wouldn't have bothered to indict him.

Woot!

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 07:06

As for Fitzgerald's indictments: The grand jury was investigating whether a crime took place.

No they werent. They were investigating whether or not a covet cia operative was outed. That should have taken all of about 15 minutes to figure out not to have happened. If there was no investigation there would have been no crime. Again if he is guilty of perjury he should go to jail. Its the same as Clinton only Clinton was far worse.

Longer Answer: "I love it when Republicans use the phrase "the criminalization of politics" because it's so freakin' hypocritical coming from the same party that spent the 90's gleefully trying to find novel ways to use the legal system to disrupt the Clinton presidency."

Theres 1 big difference. Clinton is an admitted liar and perjurer. He was also a crook. How is it the republicans arent attacking the prosecuter here?

Aurelian

10-29-2005, 10:04

I just read the indictment. It's completely and totally damning. They got him, but good.

Here's a LINK (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html) to a PDF of the indictment. It's a short 22 pages.

No they werent. They were investigating whether or not a covet cia operative was outed. That should have taken all of about 15 minutes to figure out not to have happened. If there was no investigation there would have been no crime. Again if he is guilty of perjury he should go to jail.

No, they were investigating whether a crime took place. From the indictment itself (p.9):

Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

They already knew that a covert CIA operative was outed. It took all of about 15 minutes for them to determine that: A) Valerie Plame Wilson was a NOC. B) Known Republican political hack and frequent leak recipient Novakula called her out in a nationally syndicated column. Figuring out that she'd been outed was the easy part. Determining whether her outing was the result of a crime was the difficult part, because it's not a crime (according to the primary statute) if it's done accidentally. You have to examine intent.

Its the same as Clinton only Clinton was far worse... Theres 1 big difference. Clinton is an admitted liar and perjurer. He was also a crook. How is it the republicans arent attacking the prosecuter here?

Clinton was far worse? Hardly. Clinton told a lie to a politically motivated ongoing partisan witchhunt whose goal was to embarrass a popular president by digging up salacious details about his sex life (and publishing them). Clinton was stupid for not just admitting to the adultery and getting his marital execution over quickly. The ONLY THING they ever had on Clinton was that one stupid lie over adultery. When Clinton lied to the grand jury it was wrong and illegal, but it in no way impacted on any other issue, and certainly not on anything of national security importance.

In Libby's case, his lies may very well be the result of his attempt to cover up a calculated White House campaign to publicize classified national security information in order to discredit someone who called them on their use of forged documents to take us to war! The potential gravity of the situation is ten thousand times greater than the Monica Lewinsky issue. By revealing the identity of a NOC, you compromise the identity of every CIA cover business she was ever associated with, and you give foreign security forces the information they may need to track down covert CIA assets... which in this case were involved with WMD proliferation issues! It's treasonous.

"Cover and tradecraft are the only forms of protection one has, and to have that stripped away because of political scheming is the moral equivalent to exposing forward deployed military units," said Arthur Brown, who retired in February as the CIA's Asian Division chief."

Oh, and for the reason they aren't attacking the prosecutor yet in this case see my sig below:

Tribesman

10-29-2005, 12:00

How is it the republicans arent attacking the prosecuter here?

Because they have you to do it for them ~D ~D ~D
They are not attacking the prosecuor as there is nothing to attack , the position is untenable , by standing up for the indefensible they would align themselves with criminal events and for people who are supposed to be lawful representatives there is a little problem in associating yourself with unlawful acts .
So Scooter is by himself for now , with all the others keeping their heads down in case anything may be revealed that will lead to them being charged as well .

You are basing your position on the stuff that certain media oulets have been spouting for a long time now , everyone knew that she was a CIA operative , they didn't , but it has been shown that at least 7 people in the cabinet knew she was .

Redleg

10-29-2005, 15:10

I don't have a problem with the investigation into how Plame's name got to be public knowledge - for the simple reason that the government owes it to its agents to protect them regardless of what there political thoughts are. When an agents name is released when it shouldn't the due process is to find out how it happened to prevent it from happening again - if it was accidential - no criminal charges are necessary - if it was down on purpose - then the individual that released the information did indeed committ a crime.

Fritzgerald has done a honest job of trying to cut through BS to attempt to find the answer to the charter that his grand jury was given - Libby violated the process when he lied in front of said grand jury - now it seems that he has been caught in the lie and now must face the justice system for his actions.

Now that one person has been charged for obstruction - the chips may begin to fall in one direction or another. Still without knowning what the investigation has discovered - I have yet to make a prediction on who will get indicated regarding this. It seems however that for future indictments to come about either Libby rolles on others - or another grand jury will be sworn in to complete the process.

DojoRat

10-29-2005, 16:05

Libby lied because this administration lied about why we went to war.

Wilson's going public about the lack of evidence for nucs scared them silly. They lashed out to smear him and scare silent any possible future whistle blowers.

It was scary because this outing was no small thing as many on the right want desperately to believe. Mrs. Wilson's job wasn't an open secret. Was she a deep cover agent at the time? , no, was she in the past? I don't know but if she was the govt put at risk any one she met with at that time. In many countries any contact with a foreign agent will get you hauled in for questioning, or worse.

And even if she never did anything, there is still the principle of the thing. This administration doesn't have the right to reveal names of those the CIA deems undercover. Period. End of sentence.

The CIA pushed for this special prosecutor to cover their ass. Sure, they failed miserably, they failed to stand up to Cheney and his arm twisting, and gave him the reasons he needed to get the people behind his war. And now it's pay back time.

I don't know why this administration went to war. There were no nucs and no links to Al Queda in Iraq. If there were, if they even believed it was true, they wouldn't have risked so much by going after Wilson.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 18:25

Because they have you to do it for them

Where have I attacked him?

They are not attacking the prosecuor as there is nothing to attack , the position is untenable

Would you like to make a wager on that?

You are basing your position on the stuff that certain media oulets have been spouting for a long time now , everyone knew that she was a CIA operative ,

Nice spin. Neither I nor any news outlet I know of said everyone knew that she was a CIA operative . It was said that many did know it before. Once more there is no way she can be seen as a covert agent. It was obvious from the start and that should have been the end of it.

but it has been shown that at least 7 people in the cabinet knew she was .

No they new she wasnt a covert agent not that she was.

I don't have a problem with the investigation into how Plame's name got to be public knowledge - for the simple reason that the government owes it to its agents to protect them regardless of what there political thoughts are. When an agents name is released when it shouldn't the due process is to find out how it happened to prevent it from happening again - if it was accidential - no criminal charges are necessary - if it was down on purpose - then the individual that released the information did indeed committ a crime.

These investigations are launched by the CIA. Of course they have the right and duty to do so. But they knew she wasnt a covert agent to begin with and how is it that those who outed her identity in the first place inculding her husband didnt catch any flack nor was anyone indicted from the Bush administration for doing so. Its simple because she was not a covert agent and no crime was committed.

Libby lied because this administration lied about why we went to war.

Is that so? THats what the liberals were hoping for but even the prosectutor said this has nothing to do with it. You have no proof that anyone other than Wilson and now Libby lied.

Wilson's going public about the lack of evidence for nucs scared them silly. They lashed out to smear him and scare silent any possible future whistle blowers.

Excuse me. This was a plot by Wilson and his wife to smesr the whitehouse not the other way around. The man also belongs in jail.

Mrs. Wilson's job wasn't an open secret. Was she a deep cover agent at the time?

Thats a load of crap .

JimBob

10-29-2005, 19:47

Once more there is no way she can be seen as a covert agent

There was no crime commited in the first place to even launch ths investigation other than the CIA trying to cover its own butt and ask for one because they messed up and sent Wilson there in the first place.

Errr...thing about that is that revealing her identity blew open a CIA front company that she had been working to set up. A number of former CIA and DIA officers have testified that the leak was damaging to national security.

That requires and investigation, if it was accidental because someone didn't know she was covert, fine, find that out. Smack his around the room. But to say that the leak of an important CIA operative's identity does not require investigation offer aid and comfort to our enemies, they now see that we don't care about our agents.

Xiahou

10-29-2005, 19:51

They already knew that a covert CIA operative was outed.
Actually, during the press conference, Fitzgerald deliberately steered clear of saying that when asked.

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 20:02

No they werent. They were investigating whether or not a covet cia operative was outed. That should have taken all of about 15 minutes to figure out not to have happened. If there was no investigation there would have been no crime. Again if he is guilty of perjury he should go to jail. Its the same as Clinton only Clinton was far worse.

Theres 1 big difference. Clinton is an admitted liar and perjurer. He was also a crook. How is it the republicans arent attacking the prosecuter here?
Congrats Gawain. You've just said what we all knew anyway: Clinton was essentially pursued until he could be caught on a totally unrelated technicality. However, his technicality had nothing to do with what Starr was supposed to be investigating, while Fitz's charges are directly tied with what he was empowered to investigate.

Clinton wasn't a crook, he did lie about a private matter. Big deal! Cheney and Dubya are liars, but on much more important things than their sex lives. Frankly, I don't care if Clinton lied about his sex life, it shouldn't have been an issue anyway. Wrongs had been committed by others to get it to that point. (Way to go SCOTUS!) Did he do wrong by lying about it? Yes. The system was so abused by the GOP to get it to that point, that it will go down in history as one of the most laughable farces in history. And the fallout of it has been bad for the country.

They spent many years and many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to find a way with charge Clinton on some sort of financial shenanigans, yet they never succeeded.

If anyone ever bothered to investigate Cheney or Dubya the same way they would have been charged. Both with accounting fraud/SEC violations. Getting a conviction in white collar crime is trickier, but they should have been investigated.

And at the same time we have the entire Whitehouse involved in a cover up. Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Bush have all made public statements (denials) about this that have now proven false. Bush can claim he was lied to at the time, but that doesn't exactly absolve him. The only thing they should really be hoping for is that Libby accepts responsibility and says it was all his doing. Otherwise, this is case of conspiracy, abuse of power, and cover up.

You've also missed the point that Libby and others could still be charged with the criminal matter that this investigation was originally about. I hope they are, but keep that should be kept as a separate trial as it is a separate matter.

There is also a chance that conspiracy charges could also be sought.

I liked it when Fitz made the comment about your "talking points" not flying. He addressed that directly.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 20:14

Congrats Gawain. You've just said what we all knew anyway: Clinton was essentially pursued until he could be caught on a totally unrelated technicality. However, his technicality had nothing to do with what Starr was supposed to be investigating, while Fitz's charges are directly tied with what he was empowered to investigate.

Its nice to see you agree with me for once~D The fact is though that he perjured himself. If its serious for Libby to have done so then its the same for Clinton and his wife. Fitzs charges have nothing to do with the original charge. Since like in the Delay case no charges should have been brought up in the first place as its pretty evident she was neither a covert agent nor was her idenity a national secret.

Clinton wasn't a crook, he did lie about a private matter. Big deal

Thats all he did? Come on~;p

They spent many years and many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to find a way with charge Clinton on some sort of financial shenanigans, yet they never succeeded.

Looks like the Dems are takiing this one step further. And as you said who pays for all this nonsense?

If anyone ever bothered to investigate Cheney or Dubya the same way they would have been charged. Both with accounting fraud/SEC violations. Getting a conviction in white collar crime is trickier, but they should have been investigated.

Your right theve been given a pass.

And at the same time we have the entire Whitehouse involved in a cover up.

I take it you have proof of this? I see it as a CIA cover up. Why did they launch an investigation when they knew she wasnt a covert agent and that no law had been broken? Could it be to cover their butts on the WMD issue?

You've also missed the point that Libby and others could still be charged with the criminal matter that this investigation was originally about. I hope they are, but keep that should be kept as a separate trial as it is a separate matter.

There is also a chance that conspiracy charges could also be sought.

Again your still wishing and hoping here. Its pretty clear the investigation is over and the grand jury dissmissed. I doubt this will go much further. In fact I doubt Libby will even go to jail.

Just wondering are you guilty of perjury if you claim to be innocent when you know you not?

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 20:23

The heart of the matter is that someone in the administraton publicly outed a CIA agent. It wasn't common knowledge, as the reporters and others have said they didn't know. She may or may not have been a NOC, but it is almost certain that the CIA didn't want the entire cover operation blown by the Whitehouse. Did the Whitehouse ask for permission to reveal that she was an agent? I've not yet heard that they had. No matter how they spin it this certainly appears to be wrong.

This is treasonous abuse of power for political gain. What I want to know is who else was involved? How was the decision reached? I want to see the President, Rove, and Cheney deny under oath that they knew or were in anyway involved in the revelation. None of their public statements mean squat. Get them under oath and let them testify. 50/50 this will prove to be a "loose cannon" or a conspiracy. It was one or the other.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 20:42

The heart of the matter is that someone in the administraton publicly outed a CIA agent

Thats where your wrong. She was outed by her own husband long before anyone in the administration blew her so called cover. If she were a covert agent Libby would be facing far worse charges than he is. This is why no indictments were brought on the original charges. They were bogus. She meets little or none of the criteria that the statute requires for a crime to have been committed.

This is treasonous abuse of power for political gain.

Wilson and the liberals are certainly very guilty in this matter . Trying to undermine the government in a time of war with lies. Then when the whitehouse shows them to be the liars they are they cry foul.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 20:53

Ever Loyal to the Fascist bastards that lead our nation to destruction.

Has it ever occured to you that they might be guilty as charged?

Has it ever occured to you that I said he should go to jail if this is found to be so? If you could prove that Bush intentionaly lied to get us into a war with Iraq Id be all for impeaching him. This however is not the case much as you and others here would like it to be.

Also I didnt realise our nation was on its way to destruction. I se it more as at least a slowdown of the destruction liberals have inflicted upon this nation for the last 50 years. Bush is far to liberal for most of us conservatives but hes a dman site better than anyone the democrats put up other than Lieberman who I think would have been better than Bush or Kerry.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 21:04

Not Conservative enough? Pray tell, do you want smaller government, or more controlling religious influence? Can't really have both.

What has that to do with Bush. He spends like a drunken sailor. He signed the education and prescribtion drug bills just for starts. Our borders are a joke. Hes not nearly as conservtive as his base. And how does religous influence, influence the size of government?

If you think he was conservtive before watch what happens now. The base is up in arms. The left thinks we are splitting when in reality its a call to arms even the president wont be able to ignore. Do what we put you in office to do or get the hell out.

Tribesman

10-29-2005, 21:07

Nice spin. Neither I nor any news outlet I know of said everyone knew that she was a CIA operative
Really , who is that grey haired dickhead on the fox news channel then , one of the the belt-up boyz ~;) , or that other moron who gives "no spin"~D ~D ~D
A very much used phrase is "EVERONE KNEW" ~:rolleyes:

Where have I attacked him?

oh lets see , you say fitz is the one who should be indicted , and then later you say that he is a moron .
So is that or is that not attacking the prosecutior ?~:cheers:

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 21:14

you say fitz is the one who should be indicted

Would you care to quote me on that?

and then later you say that he is a moron .
So is that or is that not attacking the prosecutior

Wow thats was a pretty strong attack I must say. I have no doubt that he is a far smater man than I . However even a moron like me can see this investigation was going nowhere from the start.

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 21:22

Gawain: Ever Loyal to the Fascist bastards that lead our nation to destruction. :knight:
Amen.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 21:27

A strong centralized government with an aggressive foreign policy that follows the mantra of "Borrow, Borrow, Borrow."?

Theres nothing conservative in that statement. Thats what were complaining about.

but you strike me as the type who asks for everything, and winds up with another Bush.

Well I got stuck with another Bush but again I sure didnt vote for him. Much as you doubt me I have my principles. I voted Libertarian as I always do. Again hes way to liberal for my likings.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Gawain: Ever Loyal to the Fascist bastards that lead our nation to destruction.

Amen.

I think my posts here alone show that to be a bunch of crap. Amen indeed.

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 21:36

If its serious for Libby to have done so then its the same for Clinton and his wife. Fitzs charges have nothing to do with the original charge.
Gawain, this is your favorite tactic, repeating bald faced lies as often as possible hoping they will stick. Shameful.

Since like in the Delay case no charges should have been brought up in the first place as its pretty evident she was neither a covert agent nor was her idenity a national secret.
The GOP leaders in Delay's district don't feel that way about the charges. The other night a local GOP party leader referred to him as a "fat pig" that was going to get "slaughtered." I live in Delay's district by the way.

I take it you have proof of this? I see it as a CIA cover up. Why did they launch an investigation when they knew she wasnt a covert agent and that no law had been broken? Could it be to cover their butts on the WMD issue?
Again, you are repeating lies Gawain. The CIA didn't out her, the Bush administraton did.

Again your still wishing and hoping here. Its pretty clear the investigation is over and the grand jury dissmissed. I doubt this will go much further. In fact I doubt Libby will even go to jail.
It would be you doing the wishing and hoping. The grand jury was dismissed because it can not be held any longer. There is nothing to prevent Fitz from using another grand jury. (Not that you could be bothered into getting the facts right.)

What you fear is that they actually will fully investigate this matter. If the truth is ever able to make it out of the cover up there could be a whole lot more for the Admin to answer for. Make them testify under oath and we might find out what really happened...or catch them in more lies.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 21:46

Gawain, this is your favorite tactic, repeating bald faced lies as often as possible hoping they will stick. Shameful.

Again your hypocrisy knows no bounds. No one has been indicted for leaking Plames name.

Again, you are repeating lies Gawain. The CIA didn't out her, the Bush administraton did.

I never said the CIA outed her I said her husband and others had. Better get your facts straight before accussing people of lying.

It would be you doing the wishing and hoping. The grand jury was dismissed because it can not be held any longer. There is nothing to prevent Fitz from using another grand jury. (Not that you could be bothered into getting the facts right.)

Thers nothing from starting one against me either. I have my facts straight.

What you fear is that they actually will fully investigate this matter. If the truth is ever able to make it out of the cover up there could be a whole lot more for the Admin to answer for. Make them testify under oath and we might find out what really happened...or catch them in more lies.

Theres nothing a would relish more than the whole truth on this ridiculous matter be brought to light and the shameless attempt by the Wilsons and the CIA to smear the Admisitration be shown to everyone. They started it and when they were caught they cried foul.

Tribesman

10-29-2005, 21:46

Would you care to quote me on that?

My mistake , its Wilson you said .

How about the rest of the post then ?
The same phrase was used again on Cavuto and then on Hannitty .
Coulter seems to be stuck on it , well , alternating her use of it with the usual Clintons worse / Wilsons worse tirade .

Or how about ....However even a moron like me can see this investigation was going nowhere from the start......
So indicting Libby is going nowhere ? and extending the investigations time limit is going nowhere ? The only reason it has had difficulty getting anwhere is due to obtruction .

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 21:46

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 21:52

Keep repeating the lies Gawain, you have obviously convinced yourself. As to whether it met all of the criteria of the statute has not been addressed yet. I've not heard the prosecuter state yay or nay. However, the cover up by Libby (and it appears by others) certainly complicated the matter.

Well I heard the person who drafted the statute and she said they went to great lengths to make sure it wasnt used in a case like this and that in no way should this case have gone forward.

Really? Looks more like you are the one lying. You and scooter.

So Wilson didnt lie before congress? He didnt report exactly the opposite of what he found in Niger? Now whos lying? Your lucky thers no way to sue people here for slander constantly calling me a liar with nothing to back it up but your own personal anamice for me.

This Administration is the one undermining this nation. It is being called to task for doing so. Lies are what Bush used to launch the war. He should be impeached for it. Then impeached again for his incompetence at handling it.

Again if you can prove this im right with ya.

Trying to hide behind the troops is cowardice, both by you and the president.

Now you have gone to far. Ill remind you I once was the troops. I hide behind no one. Calling me a coward is low even for you.

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 21:57

Again your hypocrisy knows no bounds. No one has been indicted for leaking Plames name.
Not true. Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury related to leaking the name. It wasn't for some separate unrelated matter. No, Libby lied to the investigators about the leak. Since he was attempting to hide the truth and did not cooperate (and supposedly lied to Bush and Cheney) he has effectively blocked part of the investigation.

I'm all for charging him with anything else he might be guilty of: outing a NOC, conspiracy, even treason.

I never said the CIA outed her I said her husband and others had. Better get your facts straight before accussing people of lying.
You have no facts, just fabrications that you want to believe.

Theres nothing a would relish more than the whole truth on this ridiculous matter be brought to light and the shameless attempt by the Wilsons and the CIA to smear the Admisitration be shown to everyone. They started it and when they were caught they cried foul.
You have no credibility in this regard. You've wanted this buried since it first arose.

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 22:02

Now you have gone to far. Ill remind you I once was the troops. I hide behind no one. Calling me a coward is low even for you.
Giving you a taste of your own medicine. You deserve it 100%. Those who claim they cannot be questioned because it undermines our troops are hiding behind them like cowards. It is not democratic, nor is it right to claim anyone who disagrees with the Administration is trying to harm our troops or country. If you want to use that, then I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Whether or not you served is irrelevant, it hasn't seemed to effect your rhetoric when talking about other veterans that hold different views.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-29-2005, 22:10

Giving you a taste of your own medicine

And where have I ever called you a cowrd? Its nothing more than an attempt at a cheap shot.

Whether or not you served is irrelevant, it hasn't seemed to effect your rhetoric when talking about other veterans that hold different views.

Like who for instance. There is no one I dissagree with more on these boards than Kafir yet I respect and thank him still for the service he gave to our country. How am I hiding behind our soldiers? I was willing to fight and die for this country which is whole l lot more than you can say. Well you can say it but I can back my claim up with evidence.

Ser Clegane

10-29-2005, 22:24

I think it would be good now to take a deep breath, calm down and then focus on the actual topic again.

I don't think that this is the place to duke out personal animosities.

:bow:

Red Harvest

10-29-2005, 22:34

And where have I ever called you a cowrd? Its nothing more than an attempt at a cheap shot.

Like who for instance. There is no one I dissagree with more on these boards than Kafir yet I respect and thank him still for the service he gave to our country. How am I hiding behind our soldiers? I was willing to fight and die for this country which is whole l lot more than you can say. Well you can say it but I can back my claim up with evidence.
You make the claims general most of the time. I don't feel like digging through 12,000 posts to prove my point. You also refer to specific politicians who were veterans.

As to being willing to fight and die, that has never been a problem for me. Spending a full career in the military was (knowing I wanted to have a stable family life), hence I didn't go the officer corps route despite having earned a full scholarship for it. I made my own way instead. Doesn't mean I won't step up to the plate without hesitation if my services are needed by my country. And it doesn't mean that I haven't worked on things that directly supported our military, including on closed military bases.

Wrapping yourself in the flag, claiming to represent our troops is just wrong. I do view it as a cowardly tactic to avoid the real issue. To me it is far worse for a leader to present false evidence to get his country into a war, than it is for others to call him up on it once the conflict is underway (and going poorly.)

EDIT: Just saw Ser Clegane's post. However, my view is unchanged. Wrap yourself in the flag, call others traitors, expect to be called a coward for doing so. I can be just as direct as the next fellow.

Crazed Rabbit

10-29-2005, 22:49

You make the claims general most of the time. I don't feel like digging through 12,000 posts to prove my point. You also refer to specific politicians who were veterans.

Well isn't that convienent? Make all sorts of outrageous claims and not a bit of proof of it.

Sheesh.

Crazed Rabbit

Aurelian

10-29-2005, 23:09

Thats where your wrong. She was outed by her own husband long before anyone in the administration blew her so called cover. If she were a covert agent Libby would be facing far worse charges than he is. This is why no indictments were brought on the original charges. They were bogus. She meets little or none of the criteria that the statute requires for a crime to have been committed. - Gawain

Okay, I want to get into this concept that Plame was not a "covert agent" for a moment. The right has been spinning this for some time now.

Here's what former CIA agent and registered Republican Larry Johnson had to say about that in an interview with To the Point's Warren Olney:

WO: ...(E)arlier this year, Victoria Toensing, one of the republicans and a person who was involved in writing the law that might or might not have been violated here, says that Valerie Plame gave up her role as a covert agent 9 years before Karl Rove ever talked to anybody in...

LJ: No. That's not true. That's just a lie. She doesn't know what she's talking about. Valerie Plame was still undercover on the day that her name appeared in the Robert Novak column.

WO: And that was in 2003.

LJ: July 2003. She went undercover the very day we walked into the CIA together back in September of 1985. She chose.. There's two kinds of cover. There's official and non-official. Official cover basically means that when you go overseas you carry a black passport which is an official US government passport. If you're picked up in the process of doing espionage, that passport is your get-out-of-jail-card-free. Valerie chose to become what's called a non-official cover officer. That means she was travelling overseas without an official US passport or maybe no US passport whatsoever. And if you're picked up in the process of conducting espionage, you can be executed. So she was in the most sensitive of positions, and she continued to be UNDER COVER. And Victoria Toensing does not know what she is talking about, and that kind of ignorance and misinformation is just... That itself in my view is criminal.

WO: All right. Victoria Toensing is not here to defend herself. But she and other republicans are as well are saying that at the time that Karl Rove talked to the reporters, the CIA had given Plame a desk job, and she publicly was going back and forth from that, and that anybody who wanted to know that could find it out.

LJ: No! Ridiculous! Because I was undercover the first 4 years I was out there, and I had a desk job. I just said goodbye yesterday to a friend of mine who's been at his desk job for the last 3 years. Before that he was in Afghanistan right after 9/11 chasing down the Taliban. He's undercover. I mean, again, the level of ignorance of these people and the misinformation they're putting out is inexcusable. And it's all part of this continuing smear against Valerie Plame, who was, until Novak outed her, not just undercover, but she was a non-official cover officer. And not only did they out her, they compromised a company that provided the front for her non-official cover activities, which then links into position to compromise other intelligence assets...

Valerie (was) in a non-official cover [unintelligible] overseas as someone doing consulting for that particular company. That would put her in a position to meet with foreign officials, people involved with the energy industry, involved with the chemical industry. That would put her in the position to do spotting and assessment for potential spies. And once you expose her and you expose that company, then everybody that had any dealings with it that was a foreigner is now under a cloud of suspicion of having been a CIA asset.

Now, please read that... because Larry Johnson knows what he's talking about, he was a CIA agent, and he knows Valerie Plame personally.

You can have a desk job as an analyst at CIA and still be undercover.

If Valerie Plame didn't fit the definition of "covert" that was required in the statute, the Justice Department would never have agreed to open up the investigation in the first place.

The reason that Libby is not facing an indictment for outing Plame is that this very careful and competent prosecutor didn't feel that he could easily prove (yet) that Libby "knew" that she had covert status.

From the indictment:

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them...

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community...

28. A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.

You need to prove knowledge in order to indict under the statute. It's not easy to prove that someone wasn't just a dumbass.

However, for those people who really think that the White House might only have "accidentally" blown Plame's cover, you should read the indictment and its history of meetings regarding what to do with Wilson, the frequent White House discussions of his wife that took place, and how they were carefully left out of Libby's testimony.

If this leak were an accident, would Rove have called Chris Matthews and said
"Wilson's wife is fair game!"? Hardly. Of course, proving that beyond a reasonable doubt is a different matter.

Xiahou

10-30-2005, 00:40

If Valerie Plame didn't fit the definition of "covert" that was required in the statute, the Justice Department would never have agreed to open up the investigation in the first place.
Re-read the applicable law and listen to Fitzgerald's press conference. He refused to say she was "covert".

So indicting Libby is going nowhere ? and extending the investigations time limit is going nowhere ? The only reason it has had difficulty getting anwhere is due to obtruction .The investigation isnt being extended- its effectively over. What Fitzgerald said was that it's perfectly normal to keep resources on it in case new facts come to light- this is nothing out of the ordinary. The obstruction obviously didn't hamper the investigation too bad- Fitz claims to know where Libby was lying and about what. It's hard to imagine what information was hidden with that in mind.

Red Harvest

10-30-2005, 01:44

Re-read the applicable law and listen to Fitzgerald's press conference. He refused to say she was "covert".
And he refused to say whether or not Pluto is technically a planet, an asteroid, or something else entirely. He didn't need to make a judgement on that to make this indictment. Instead, he is dealing with the cover up that was attempted by the source of the information.

The investigation isnt being extended- its effectively over. What Fitzgerald said was that it's perfectly normal to keep resources on it in case new facts come to light- this is nothing out of the ordinary. The obstruction obviously didn't hamper the investigation too bad- Fitz claims to know where Libby was lying and about what. It's hard to imagine what information was hidden with that in mind.
That remains to be seen. He conspicuously hasn't said that other figures are in the clear. So as to whether it is over or not, that is not clear. Looks 50/50 to me, and he could conclude to indict others or question others to wrap up some other parts. The guy has been closed lipped personally. I believe he should report eventually on whether or not the original statute was or was not violated based on the investigation. However, in his position it makes more sense to wait until things are settled with Libby. After all, Libby might rollover to reduce his jail time.

The spirit of the law was certainly violated. The question remains whether the letter of the law was violated as well.

It has after all been revealed that Libby learned of Plame's status from Cheney. So one must ask whether or not some clarification should have been sought before revealing the name. Were they reckless? Did they receive information that she was not a NOC? Did they have discussions about her status? Who decided to let this information out? (Since Libby appears to have lied repeatedly, we don't know whether or not he did this on his own, or after a conference with someone else.)

If they claim she was in a gray area, and did not clear her status with the CIA, then they were most certainly reckless, not the sort of people you want handling sensitive information.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-30-2005, 01:47

The reason that Libby is not facing an indictment for outing Plame is that this very careful and competent prosecutor didn't feel that he could easily prove (yet) that Libby "knew" that she had covert status.

No its because she was not a covert agent. I suggest you do a bit more research on the Statute you claim was broken here. Again the person who drafted it says it can no way be used against anyone here sine Plame dosent come even close to meeting the requirments of a covert agent.

The spirit of the law was certainly violated. The question remains whether the letter of the law was violated as well.

I could call you a liar here. But Ill leave the accusations to you. Theres no doubt that the law was not violated. Thats why they only got him on lying to the grand jury. One more time it was not against the law to out Plame and she had been outed by others long before Novack wrote the article or the adminsitration got envolved. One more thing the statute claims you must knowingly ourt a covert agent in order to do damage to thew US for it to come into effect. This certainly wasnt the case here even if she were a covert agent which she had not been for at least 6 years. The statute also says she must have been out of the US and serving overseas within the last 5 years. She also fails to meet this requirment.

solypsist

10-30-2005, 02:07

now someone needs to start a poll on whether Scooter Libby will ever serve a day in prison.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-30-2005, 02:24

If Valerie Plame didn't fit the definition of "covert" that was required in the statute, the Justice Department would never have agreed to open up the investigation in the first place.

They certainly would as the CIA requested them to. She was classified not covert. There was no mention of outing a covert agent in their request.

As to being willing to fight and die, that has never been a problem for me. Spending a full career in the military was (knowing I wanted to have a stable family life), hence I didn't go the officer corps route despite having earned a full scholarship for it.

Now your confusing me. Were you in the service or not? I was asked to got to OCS but turned them down and stayed an enlisted man. Big deal.

Wrapping yourself in the flag, claiming to represent our troops is just wrong.

Ive never done that.

To me it is far worse for a leader to present false evidence to get his country into a war, than it is for others to call him up on it once the conflict is underway (and going poorly.)

But you have no proof Bush lied here.

Just saw Ser Clegane's post. However, my view is unchanged. Wrap yourself in the flag, call others traitors, expect to be called a coward for doing so. I can be just as direct as the next fellow.

This is why you have the title of Mr hypocrisy. You have called people who wore the uniform of the US traitors and worse. I try to stay to the topic . You however never cease to start in with the personal attacks calling me a liar and a coward. What in heavens name were the mods thinking when they made you a Senior member? I guess they werent so picky in the old days.~;p

Xiahou

10-30-2005, 02:40

And he refused to say whether or not Pluto is technically a planet, an asteroid, or something else entirely.Then again, no one queried him on astronomy like they did on her covert status. ~:rolleyes:

That remains to be seen. He conspicuously hasn't said that other figures are in the clear.He also hasnt said that Pluto is a planet.... :laugh:

What he was conspicuous about saying was that the "ongoing" part was a normal part of any investigation. If something falls in his lap, he has the ability to go to a new grand jury- but the active investigation and the grand jury's term is over.

Red Harvest

10-30-2005, 03:21

I could call you a liar here. But Ill leave the accusations to you. Theres no doubt that the law was not violated.
I have no problem calling what you have just said a falsehood. You can repeat it as often as you like, but you can't make it true by doing so. If there had been no doubt about whether or not the law had been broken, then there would have been no investigation. There is/was reason to believe the law had been broken, hence the investigation.

Regardless, the spirit of the law was broken.

Red Harvest

10-30-2005, 03:29

But you have no proof Bush lied here.Actually, from what I recall of his statements on the matter, he has either lied or stretched the truth by stating how he wouldn't tolerate it. Now in retrospect his wording appears to have been structured to deceive (like he knew more...and chose his words carefully.)

Either way, he had allowed both Libby and Rove to stay in the administration despite the fact that Libby and Rove both lied to him about their involvement. That would be enough to can them immediately. The fact that hasn't happened then suggests that he certainly knew more. If he was really in the dark, he would have canned them both.

Now he is the first since Grant to have a member indicted while still in their position. Way to go! Glad that Dubya has brought back all the integrity that typified the Grant administration. ~:eek:

Red Harvest

10-30-2005, 03:56

This is why you have the title of Mr hypocrisy. You have called people who wore the uniform of the US traitors and worse. I try to stay to the topic . You however never cease to start in with the personal attacks calling me a liar and a coward. What in heavens name were the mods thinking when they made you a Senior member? I guess they werent so picky in the old days.~;p
Good to see that you aren't reverting to name calling. ~:rolleyes: Aren't you going to call me a liberal again? They hypocrisy accusation is pretty amusing coming from someone expressing the Republican platform yet claiming to be Libertarian.

There have been traitors who have worn the uniform, quite a few actually.

I won't retract the liar comment as I've seen too many falsehoods repeated by you as if they were truth. Coward might have been a bit harsh, but it is a strong gut reaction that comes from seeing your comments about those who dissent. I don't like being painted as a traitor or coward for opposing what this administration are doing, and I know both are inaccurate. When you paint with that broad brush, it ticks me off. So I decided to give you a full taste of it yourself. For the record, I do indeed believe those hiding behind the War to protect themselves from judgement or dissent are cowards. Sending folks off to fight a war under false pretenses, then being unwilling to face the criticism: that is cowardice. I will drop it, but there is my reasoning for being offended and responding. Is it personal? You bet, I find many of your comments personally offensive.

As to why I was made a Senior Member: I don't know, nobody gave me a reason and it happened some time ago. I didn't realize it for a time. However, I was doing what I could to help newbies and the Apothecary, etc. I wasn't spending any time in the Backroom.

I don't see why the Backroom would figure much into it anyway. To me it always represented any area for more frank discussion of opinions. Now if you do all your posting in the Backroom...I don't see that adding anything to the the org.

Tribesman

10-30-2005, 04:52

You have called people who wore the uniform of the US traitors and worse.
Now I wonder when Gawain called someone who wore the uniform of the US a traitor and a coward , it isn't really that long ago is it .~;)
Time to make a swift exit :hide:

Red Harvest

10-30-2005, 05:19

Just thought I would add a few quotes from the indictment that completely refute several claims made by others here:

Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the
CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation
with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
That pretty much kills the "common knowledge" side of the argument.

Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by
telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY
whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that
the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA
in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure
telephone line.

On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective
leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s
trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
So he considered it improper to discuss this outside of secure phone line, but was sharing it with reporters...

On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press
Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such
information was not widely known.
Again...showing that she was not known to be a CIA agent outside of official channels.

On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized
disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the
CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

There is a lot more like that in the indictment. It is pretty damning and demonstrates a clear pattern.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-30-2005, 06:38

Now I wonder when Gawain called someone who wore the uniform of the US a traitor and a coward , it isn't really that long ago is it

Red Harvest beat you to that charge long ago. You guys seem to forget that Bush also wore that uniform. I was accused of cowardice by Red Harvest. If thats not a personal attack I dont no what constitutes one. Since I served in the same war as Kerry I feel I have the perfect right to critisize him. Harvest hasnt served a day yet its ok for him to attack anyone who ever wore the uniform as long as their a conservative. But of course Red Harvest is a moderate man.

That pretty much kills the "common knowledge" side of the argument.

Your spinning again. No one said it was common knowledge but that it wasnt the administration that first made it known.

CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation

Again thats not covert. Theres a huge difference. There is no law against outing a classified CIA employee. The statute clearly says you must know the person to be a covert agent and blow their cover to cause harm to the US.

Again...showing that she was not known to be a CIA agent outside of official channels.

You keep spinning like this youll get dizzy.

Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such
information was not widely known.

Was not widely known. That covers a lot of terrirtory.

On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized
disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the
CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

You notice theres no mention of her being a covert agent here? Classified information was leaked to reporters. Thats against governent regualtions but not against the law. Its standard procedure for the CIA to investigate the matter. Again they never claimed a covert agent was compromised.

Aurelian

10-30-2005, 06:54

Re-read the applicable law and listen to Fitzgerald's press conference. He refused to say she was "covert". - Xiahou

Throughout the press conference, Fitzgerald refused to comment on anything outside of the indictments made. Since Libby wasn't charged under the intelligence statutes, Plame's "covert" status wasn't at issue.

In addition, Fitzgerald is undoubtedly not free to discuss Plame's status publicly. The CIA has been in damage control mode, and apparently:

Legal filings by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by the actions of Rove and others. On 18 July 2005, The Economist reported that Valerie Plame had been dissuaded by the CIA from publishing her own account of her exposure, suggesting that such an article would itself be a breach of national security. The Economist also reported that "affirmative measures" by the CIA were being taken to protect Plame's identity at the time Karl Rove revealed her CIA affiliation to journalists. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair)

If the legal filings are blacked out for national security purposes, and Plame hasn't been allowed to write about the outing, it's obvious that the CIA still has some things it would like to keep secret.

Again, here is the section from the press conference where Fitzgerald chose not to speak to Plame's status:

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.

He is simply refusing to discuss something that is outside of the indictments that the grand jury handed down. You can't draw an inference from that that Plame did not have covert status.

Let's also be clear that a NOC, somebody with non-official cover, would not be publicly "stationed" overseas in the manner suggested by the statute. If Plame travelled overseas using her cover, or dealt with operatives and assets stationed overseas, there might not be a public record, but she could still be covered under the statute. NOC status is such that the government would deny the status of a NOC... even if the NOC was captured and facing execution. It would be silly to expect that her activities during the previous six years could be evaluated for the purpose of the statute by anyone without the proper security clearances to know what it was that she was really doing during that time.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-30-2005, 07:12

Throughout the press conference, Fitzgerald refused to comment on anything outside of the indictments made. Since Libby wasn't charged under the intelligence statutes, Plame's "covert" status wasn't at issue.

He wasnt charged under the intelligence statutes because she wasnt a covert agent and they had no case. This has been a witch hunt from the start. The whole reason for the investigation the liberals claim is that a covert CIA agent was outed. This however is not the case. The truth is classified CIA information was leaked and that was asked to be investigated.

If the legal filings are blacked out for national security purposes, and Plame hasn't been allowed to write about the outing, it's obvious that the CIA still has some things it would like to keep secret.

Im sure. Like why dd they send that political hack Wilson to do this job and why did they let him write about hes "secret" trip and lie about what he had found to boot?

He is simply refusing to discuss something that is outside of the indictments that the grand jury handed down. You can't draw an inference from that that Plame did not have covert status.

You certainly can or as you said he would have been charged under the intelligence statutes.

Let's also be clear that a NOC, somebody with non-official cover, would not be publicly "stationed" overseas in the manner suggested by the statute

Look the person who drafted this statute says that theres no way anyone can be charged in this case udsing that statute. I tend to take her word for it over yours or any of these liberals. In fact she said they went to great pains to make sure it couldnt be used in such a case. It seems she was succesful.

Xiahou

10-30-2005, 07:17

You can't draw an inference from that that Plame did not have covert status.Nor can you infer the she DID- and that is my point. Libby being indicted for perjury has nothing to do with what Plame's status was.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-30-2005, 07:19

Yup. The point is if he had told the truth theres nothing they could have done to him.

Aurelian

10-30-2005, 08:13

Okay, this really isn't that hard. The following is from page 9 of the indictment document:

27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

Do you really think that the prosecutor in this case... Fitzgerald... who everybody says is probably the best prosecutor in the country... and completely non-political... do you really think that he would have the grand jury investigating violations of the "disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel" if Valerie Plame Wilson was NOT covert.

We've seen how careful Fitzgerald is... and he has no partisan agenda... so don't you think that he did a little research before laying out the investigative agenda that he was going to spend the next 18 months of his life working on?

The prosecution certainly knew by the time they empanelled the grand jury exactly what Plame's status was... and they wouldn't have been looking into charging someone with "disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel" if there hadn't been someone with "covert" status whose identity had been exposed.

In short, the prosecution knew that Plame qualified for covert status, or they wouldn't have brought the charge before the grand jury.

The fact that Fitzgerald wasn't willing to comment on Plame's covert status during the press conference was because it had no bearing on the indictments issued. Period.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-30-2005, 17:07

Do you really think that the prosecutor in this case... Fitzgerald... who everybody says is probably the best prosecutor in the country... and completely non-political..

Everyone dosent say that.

do you really think that he would have the grand jury investigating violations of the "disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel" if Valerie Plame Wilson was NOT covert.

Do you read what you post?

into POSSIBLE violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel)

You do know what possible means do you not?

The prosecution certainly knew by the time they empanelled the grand jury exactly what Plame's status was... and they wouldn't have been looking into charging someone with "disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel" if there hadn't been someone with "covert" status whose identity had been exposed.

Yes they would and you just posted why.Again if she were covert Libby would have been charged with more than he has.

The fact that Fitzgerald wasn't willing to comment on Plame's covert status during the press conference was because it had no bearing on the indictments issued. Period.

No its because she was not covert and in no way vcould he be charged under that statute. If so he would have prosecuted him under that statute. The man is still a politician no matter what you say. Im not saying a partisan one but a politician all the same.

If he had said yes I told the reporters theres nothing they coukd do to him . Now their saying he told them and still are not prosecuting him for outing a covert CIA agent. Its pretty clear.

Red Harvest

10-30-2005, 18:46

Aurelian,

Despite conservatives' attempts at spin, there is supporting circumstantial evidence that suggests she was still a NOC within the period. One was the use of cover company in a filing (a cover company that was blown by Libby.) If nothing else, there is a certain amount of time needed to extricate any associates she may have had from potential repurcussions.

If a person still was a NOC then it would be difficult to reveal in public what she was doing that classified her as such. Essentially, the Xiahous and Gawains of this world are using her undercover status against her. She can't really come out publicly and say: "I was investigating X with informants Y & Z in Alphapotamia."

Her life is not an open book, nor should her NOC activities be in the public domain. Conservative attempts at trying to use that as "proof" that she was not a NOC show faulty or dishonest reasoning.

They are spinning at max rpm...and just about to shed their lubricating film.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-30-2005, 19:52

Essentially, the Xiahous and Gawains of this world are using her undercover status against her. She can't really come out publicly and say: "I was investigating X with informants Y & Z in Alphapotamia."

If she had been a covert agent she certainly couldnt be one now. No one is asking for details. All thats needed is for the CIA to say that yes she was a covert agent. No such statement has been made by them. Again her cover was blown by her husband before any of this happened. You dont have a leg to stand on here. Its pretty obvious that they were out to smear the adminstration and then tried to use her status to further this when they were caught.

Once more the person who drafted the statute that was cited says theres no way to apply it in this case.

Kralizec

10-31-2005, 00:06

I've been following this thread with some interest. However could someone enlighten me as to why this Wilson fellow is considered a liar?

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 00:14

I've been following this thread with some interest. However could someone enlighten me as to why this Wilson fellow is considered a liar?
Because he discredited the Administration of course.

mystic brew

10-31-2005, 00:24

ok, so i've been reading about Fitzgerald...

given that he seems to be a fair, hard inquisitor, what are the avenues of attack that those opposed to the indictments can use to smear him?

about the only thing i've seen so far has been the charge of overzealousness.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-31-2005, 01:05

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
I've been following this thread with some interest. However could someone enlighten me as to why this Wilson fellow is considered a liar?

Because he discredited the Administration of course.

Wow still in full spin mode. Could it be because the mans a liar?

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

He lied about what he found in Niger and he lied saying it was the VP who sent him and not his wife. But as I said the senate intelligence comittee is a rightwing blog.

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 06:05

Wow still in full spin mode. Could it be because the mans a liar?

He lied about what he found in Niger and he lied saying it was the VP who sent him and not his wife. But as I said the senate intelligence comittee is a rightwing blog.

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)

If you read the actual report you get a different take on the matter:

1. Who ordered up the trip...there isn't anything there that really says who first decided the trip was needed. There was an effort underway to seek confirmation. A State Dept. analyst wrote a report during the same timeframe in response to a Cheney request for info on the same matter.
2. As to substance of what Wilson said in his verbal report, we are again getting this through a suspect filter--apparently one with a view about yellowcake than has been proven to be the case. That part hits you in the face when you read it.
3. The "expanding commercial relations" part is fun because it is 3rd hand hearsay that never even got to 1st base. Reporting it is the proper thing to do, doesn't mean you actually put much creedence in it.
4. If you actually attempt to read the 521 page pdf of the report (the declassified portions,) you find that the Yellowcake sales reports were already discredited as of Nov. 20, 2001, but just wouldn't die.
5. The Yellowcake sales report was repeated in more detail, and again doubted by portions of the intelligence community. Cheney asked for more info. The info he got says that parts are still in doubt. The report does not address specifically if further follow up was requested by Cheney, Tenet, etc. Only that the Counterproliferation group was seeking confirmation. In this atmosphere there is one who claims Plame "offered up" her husband's name--a logical choice considering his background. It clearly does NOT say she concocted the whole thing, or who actually decided this should be checked out. Whoever made the initial request for follow up is NOT part of the document (at least not in the visible portions.) The request for concurrence on the idea to send him by her boss to someone is blanked out, so I don't know who that is.
6. The Dept. of State doubted the intelligence and at least one of them wrote a report with the understanding it was at Cheney's request. Since he was aware of parallel work by Wilson, it is also reasonable for Wilson to conclude exactly the same thing in his own trip. What Wilson could not have known is that his info was not relayed by the CIA Director of Operations.
7. Did Wilson believe he contributed more than he actually did? Quite possibly. It is very probable that he would have been left with an erroneous impression of how his information was interpreted. The CIA person in the middle seems to have had a different agenda (an erroneous one as it turned out.)
8. Was Wilson sent because of Cheney's request for info? Most likely, whether Cheney knew so or not.
9. Despite what is being claimed, Wilson's statements actually reinforce the same conclusion as others at Dept. of State were getting--that the source (later proven to be a forgery) was wrong.
10. There are noteworthy parts that tell of dissent in the CIA on this matter, with individuals not agreeing with management on this. In light of this Wilson's claims seem reasonable.
11. As to the forged document part of Wilson's comments, they appear dubious.

At any rate, there is 100% certainty that at least one member of the Administration, and possibly more, tried to settle a score by outing Plame. Her view appears to have been that the yellow cake claim was nonsense. And she turned out to be right. Her critics on the other hand, turned out to be wrong.

Most importantly, I remember concurring with several conservative friends when the "evidence" of WMD was rolled out prior to the invasion. Our unanimous response was, "That's it???" We were not comfortable with the paucity of any hard information. While we agreed that Iraq needed to be concluded and originally expected confirmation of WMD's, the "evidence" left us underwhelmed. Why didn't the Administration have any reasonable amount of skepticism? WMD was the wrong reason to go to war with Iraq, and we are paying the price for that now.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-31-2005, 06:25

Who ordered up the trip...there isn't anything there that really says who first decided the trip was needed. There was an effort underway to seek confirmation. A State Dept. analyst wrote a report during the same timeframe in response to a Cheney request for info on the same matter.

So your denying that she recomended he went on the trip? LOL

As to the reast of your post.What part of this dont you understand

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

From what I read theres no doubt they tried to get it from Niger. Thats not what Wilson said. He lied and theres no way around it.

Here debate this

LINK (http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp)

Aurelian

10-31-2005, 06:46

Jeeeebus.

One last attempt.

Do you read what you post?

Quote:
into POSSIBLE violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel)

You do know what possible means do you not?...

Again if she were covert Libby would have been charged with more than he has...

No its because she was not covert and in no way vcould he be charged under that statute. If so he would have prosecuted him under that statute. - Gawain

I don't think you understand just how difficult it is to prosecute under the "Covert Agent Identity Protection Act". You don't have to just prove that somebody outed a covert agent. You have to prove that they knew that they were outing a covert agent, and that they knew that the US was taking "affirmative measures" to keep the identity of that agent hidden. LINK (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_Act)

In essence, it is like trying to prosecute someone for Murder 1 instead of Murder 2 or Manslaughter. To prosecute someone under Murder 1 you have to prove premeditation, which indicates intent. To successfully prosecute someone under the Covert Agent Identity Protection Act you have to prove both knowledge and intent.. which is not easy.

In the Plame case, that means that in order to indict Libby under the Act, the prosecutor would have to have been able to come up with hard evidence to prove that not only did Libby disclose Plame's identity, but that he also had known Plame's status, and that he knew that the government was taking "affirmative measures" to keep her identity hidden.

Now, there was a lot of evidence indicating that Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA, and there was even evidence indicating that he should have known that she was likely a covert agent. However, proving that he did know isn't very easy. You'd almost need a confession from a co-conspirator, or a written document from Libby exposing his knowledge in order to prove intent in this case. Apparently neither showed up. That allows plenty of room for reasonable doubt in a jury. As such, Fitzgerald went for the indictments he knew he could successfully prosecute, and left out the charge that would have been difficult to prove... and distracting for a jury.

The evidence that Libby should have known there was a strong possibility that she was a covert agent was this item from the indictment:

"On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." (Page 5, Item 9)

Now, as Josh Marshall put it the other day: "The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but the DO, where the spies, the 'operatives', come from... Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment." LINK (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006881.php)

So, it seems that you could prove that Libby and Cheney would both have had a strong reason to suspect that Plame might be a covert agent, but without further evidence you'd have a hard time proving that they knew beyond a reasonable doubt.

So when you say that Fitzgerald WOULD HAVE charged Libby under the statute if Plame had been covert... it's just not true. The prosecutor and the grand jury are only going to go for those indictments that look viable; and without evidence of those key pieces of knowledge on Libby's part it would be impossible to prove that a violation of the act had occurred.

Now, what they may be doing is setting up an ironclad case against Libby on perjury and obstruction of justice... so that they can try to get him to turn on Rove and Cheney... but that's a separate issue.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-31-2005, 07:13

don't think you understand just how difficult it is to prosecute under the "Covert Agent Identity Protection Act". You don't have to just prove that somebody outed a covert agent. You have to prove that they knew that they were outing a covert agent, and that they knew that the US was taking "affirmative measures" to keep the identity of that agent hidden. LINK

Well they could easily have started with confirming that she was indeed a covert agent. What was there to be lost from the CIA rleasing such information? Also your illustrating my point. It was obvious right from the start that this investigation was going no where.

Now, what they may be doing is setting up an ironclad case against Libby on perjury and obstruction of justice... so that they can try to get him to turn on Rove and Cheney... but that's a separate issue.

Turn on them for what? Your now trying to claim that even though she wasnt a covert agent they knew she was and intentionaly outed her? Once more the first question to be asked is was she a covert agent. If the answer to that is no and as far as anyone has said thats the answer, thenn this investigation was waste of time and taxpayer money. I now demand that the CIA answers this question as it would tell us whats really going on here. ~D

.
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. . . . In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.

Also the statute requires you to have served overseas within the last 5 years. Another criteria she does not meet.

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 07:13

So your denying that she recomended he went on the trip? LOL

Do I need to speak more S-L-O-W-L-Y for you? It is not clear who decided a trip was needed according to the report. The report says the VP had asked for more info--but apparently without a specific request. Her group was considering how to address it. She kicked out his name as a natural choice for checking it out. She didn't have authorization power, and apparently the general request didn't come from her. (Got it now, or am I going to have to go through this a 3rd time?)

As to the reast of your post.What part of this dont you understand
I get the opposite impression from the Senate Intelligence Report. The article is drawing an erroneous conclusion.

From what I read theres no doubt they tried to get it from Niger. Thats not what Wilson said. He lied and theres no way around it.

Then you should try reading something more balanced, even the Senate report. The yellow cake claim has been debunked, and folks were skeptical of it at the time. There is no evidence to support the claim. That came out in the report as well--although the forgery parts appear to be blacked out. The quantity reported as attempted was for *IRAN*, not Iraq. Wilson reported what he heard, the CIA didn't pass it on (something he wouldn't have known most likely.) The other was extremely vague 3rd party hearsay, that never even broached the subject. What he heard supported the prior assessment--and was in contrast to the claim being pushed repeatedly and more forcefully by a foreign intelligence source--apparently the forgery by the Italians. That is what was driving this. Hence, the retraction of the claim by the Administration, CIA, etc.

And I'll remind you...that isn't what the Fitzgerald investigation is about either. So you can try to sidetrack and spin all you want, but this is about illegal actions and abuse of power by the Bush Administration. Such abuse of power would concern a true libertarian for example. ~;p

Aurelian

10-31-2005, 07:14

From: "Justice launches probe into CIA leak"
Knight Ridder News, October 1st 2003

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. LINK (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:PMi-X2KWqqMJ:www.billingsgazette.com/index.php%3Fts%3D1%26display%3Drednews/2003/10/01/build/nation/25-leak.inc+Plame+CIA+referral&hl=es)

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 07:16

Aurelian,

Isn't if fun watching a "Libertarian" defend fascist tactics? ~D

Gawain of Orkeny

10-31-2005, 07:20

Do I need to speak more S-L-O-W-L-Y for you? It is not clear who decided a trip was needed according to the report. The report says the VP had asked for more info--but apparently without a specific request. Her group was considering how to address it. She kicked out his name as a natural choice for checking it out. She didn't have authorization power, and apparently the general request didn't come from her. (Got it now, or am I going to have to go through this a 3rd time?)

I didnt say she authorised it I said she recomended it. Would you like to see her memo on the matter? Now is that clear enough for you? Your parsing things here. Do you really think the VP would send Wilson there and not have him sign the standard secrecy agreement and then let him gome back and lie to the press about it? Something really stinks here.

I get the opposite impression from the Senate Intelligence Report. The article is drawing an erroneous conclusion
I dont see how. The report practiaclly came right out and called wilson a liar.

The yellow cake claim has been debunked

Thas a bunch of Bunk~:joker:

And I'll remind you...that isn't what the Fitzgerald investigation is about either. So you can try to sidetrack and spin all you want, but this is about illegal actions and abuse of power by the Bush Administration. Such abuse of power would concern a true libertarian for example.

Thats not what its about. Its supposed to be about whether anyone outed a covert CIA agent. Again if you could prove this , this Libertarian would be all for impeaching Bush. Where you get this idea I see the man as being capable of doing no wrong is beyond me.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-31-2005, 07:48

"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. LINK

Isnt that what I said ? Again if she were a covert operative ahy doesnt the CIA say so. It has nothing to loose by it ? I also qutoed a CIA operative who claims theres no way she was covert. On top of that you havent addressed the 5 year limit on being out of the country.

Where you fail to acknowledge the multitudes of misdeeds done by his administration, is where the idea comes from.

Ive made my own list of things I think hes botched. That I fail to accept yours and others accusations as gospel is where we have our differences.

Aurelian,

Isn't if fun watching a "Libertarian" defend fascist tactics

What a moronic statement that is. I dont defend any fascist tactics. Again prove that what you claim is true and Ill lead the pack in impeaching him. The funniest thing on these boards is your trying to claim not to be a liberal but a moderate independent.

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 07:52

Do you really think the VP would send Wilson there and not have him sign the standard secrecy agreement and then let him gome back and lie to the press about it?
Yes. Because he doesn't make the request directly. He asks a question, the bureaucracy tries to figure out how to address it, someone gets and assignment. Wilson's mistake is in believing his role was central to confirming or rejecting the yellow cake story. It wasn't. (Having delusions of grandeur isn't criminal.) Those wanting to believe it (like you) read his findings one way; those who didn't believe it, like the Intelligence and Research staffer read it the other way.

Something really stinks here.
Like going to war under false pretenses? Losing our international credibility, 2,000 Amercan lives (and counting), 100+ billion dollars (and counting), and losing our initiative on the war on terror?

Yeah, a whole lot of things stink about this, but Joe Wilson isn't a big enough fish to account for all that stink.

I dont see how. The report practiaclly came right out and called wilson a liar.Have you actually read it? It rightly goes after inconsistencies, but even reading from the other side what he apparently conveyed is essentially the same failure to confirm the story as before. Hence, it wasn't considered with reporting to the VP according to the DO. What he actually reported to the CIA hasn't been shown to be materially incorrect.

Realizing that the committees are controlled by the GOP, it is exactly the sort of tone I would expect in the report.

Thas a bunch of Bunk~:joker: Is that why everyone has disavowed it? Bush, Powell, Tenet, Blair...everyone involved.

Thats not what its about. Its supposed to be about whether anyone outed a covert CIA agent. Unless all those statements in the indictment prove to be false, Libby did knowingly out a covert agent. I hope he gets charged with it eventually, despite the rather rigorous limitations of the statute.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-31-2005, 07:59

Yes. Because he doesn't make the request directly. He asks a question, the bureaucracy tries to figure out how to address it, someone gets and assignment.

So he picked wilson but didnt know it. Come on at least come up with something that makes ali ttle sense.

Unless all those statements in the indictment prove to be false, Libby did knowingly out a covert agent. I hope he gets charged with it eventually, despite the rather rigorous limitations of the statute.

If he did I hope he goes to jail. Again you have to prove she was a covert agent and again if they could do that why didnt the prosecutorindicte him on those charges? Its been established by him that indeed it was Libby who outed her. Even though in reality she was outed before this . So all he need do then is prove she was covert . That would seem to me to be pretty simple.

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 08:03

I dont defend any fascist tactics.

You are in this thread.

Again prove that what you claim is true and Ill lead the pack in impeaching him.
Yeah, right. I'll get my skates ready.

The funniest thing on these boards is your trying to claim not to be a liberal but a moderate independent.
You haven't been paying attention have you? I don't claim to be a moderate--except when it represents the only applicable "other" category. I have views on various ends and sometimes moderate views, but I am independent. Federalist independent, would be closer.

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 08:09

So he picked wilson but didnt know it. Come on at least come up with something that makes ali ttle sense.
Makes a lot of sense. I didn't say that he picked Wilson, just that he asked for more info and the wheel churned. Pretty common when working for a big company or other bureaucracy. Some exec asks for info, you get a cascade of notes until somebody gets an assignment (and often a lot of help and reviews before you give them an answer that gets passed back up and sanitized to fit their own view.) Whether or not she recommended him for that assignment still doesn't alter the fact that a request for info was perceived, and apparently there were folks who believed their audience was the VP.

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 08:11

I'm tired of the discussion with you, Gawain. The appropriate smiley is always this one when conversing with you: :wall:

screwtype

10-31-2005, 08:46

Do you really think that the prosecutor in this case... Fitzgerald... who everybody says is probably the best prosecutor in the country... and completely non-political... do you really think that he would have the grand jury investigating violations of the "disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel" if Valerie Plame Wilson was NOT covert.

Yeah, exactly. If she hadn't been covert there would have been no crime to investigate.

Fitzgerald would simply have shut the inquiry down.

screwtype

10-31-2005, 08:53

if she were covert Libby would have been charged with more than he has.

My guess is that he hasn't been charged with outing a CIA agent because it might be hard to prove that (a) he was the source, and (b) that he knowingly outed a covert agent.

However, what Fitzgerald does have is a strong case that Libby perjured himself repeatedly. They are very serious charges that carry up to thirty years in jail. It will be interesting to see if he squeals to get a mitigated sentence.

Xiahou

10-31-2005, 16:27

If you read the actual report you get a different take on the matter:
:laugh: Only if you're smoking crack while you're reading it. :laugh:

But seriously, anyone who takes the time to read even the conclusions at the end of the report would see how badly you're spinning the text of the report with your little list.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-31-2005, 16:36

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I dont defend any fascist tactics.

You are in this thread.

And your full of shite. I said if they if use these tactics then they should go to jail. Talk about someone being a LIAR.

Makes a lot of sense. I didn't say that he picked Wilson, just that he asked for more info and the wheel churned

He asked for more information on what Niger? Again his wife wrote a memo asking he be sent. The VP had bothing to do with it. He stated his wife had NOTHING to do with it. Now thats a lie and you know it.

Yeah, exactly. If she hadn't been covert there would have been no crime to investigate.

Fitzgerald would simply have shut the inquiry down.

Well it seems thats what he should have done then. The original investigation was launced because classified material had been leaked not because a covert agent had been outed Again if they could prove she was covert than Libby should be facing far worse charges. He seems to already believe it was he who outed her. It was clear from the very start that they could never prove this as she again doesnt meet the 5 year requirement of the staute and Ill remind you all once more the person who drafted the statute says theres no way it was meant to apply in such a case.

Red Harvest

10-31-2005, 19:19

And your full of shite. I said if they if use these tactics then they should go to jail. Talk about someone being a LIAR.
What you say you would do does not at all match with the views you have been expressing. I do not believe you for a second.

If it has to be proven to you without a shadow of a doubt, then you will be anything but leading the pack. Instead, you will be last man on the defensive ramparts and the last to surrender. ~;)

He asked for more information on what Niger? Again his wife wrote a memo asking he be sent. The VP had bothing to do with it. He stated his wife had NOTHING to do with it. Now thats a lie and you know it.
I don't know what Wilson actually knew, neither do you, nor do I have full record of everything he has ever said. Considering his wife was a covert agent, there are some limitations to what he could say. I do know from reading the report that several analysts at the same time were also looking to provide more info to Cheney on the forgery related claims. So the wheels were in motion, and as the result of Cheney's questions. Doesn't mean Cheney lied about sending Wilson, etc. or that Wilson lied about Cheney.

That's the really pretty funny looking at it. You have one person who thought they had a larger role than they did. The CIA decided not to forward on his limited info. He got upset believing it had been sent to the VP, went public (since he was not restricted on the matter.) The Administration then panicked. As a result Libby was at the center of trying to discredit Wilson and the CIA any way he could, including illegal means. He was discussing parts of this with Rove, Fleischer, Cheney, etc. The Whitehouse then later denied that they had a role in this, when it would be clear that they did--since they were all involved in various fashions.

Plame is not allowed to speak out on the matter. The CIA have her gagged.

On a fundamental basis, what Libby did (outing an agent) was wrong and he knew it. It was an abuse of power and bad for national security as well. The Administration knew he and Rove had been telling lies about this months ago (since they had both lied about not being involved in the first place), yet they were left in their jobs. Spin, spin, spin all you like, but this is why you have no credibility in my eyes: a "Libertarian" defending clear abuse of power = not credible. You are relying on the "go after the rape victim" legal tactic.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-01-2005, 00:25

What you say you would do does not at all match with the views you have been expressing. I do not believe you for a second.

Ive said from the start that if the alligations are true he should go to jail. Do you really think I give two craps if you believe me or not?

If it has to be proven to you without a shadow of a doubt, then you will be anything but leading the pack. Instead, you will be last man on the defensive ramparts and the last to surrender.

Is nice to know that you know me better than I do myself. Ive never wittnessed such arrogance on these boards.

don't know what Wilson actually knew, neither do you, nor do I have full record of everything he has ever said. Considering his wife was a covert agent, there are some limitations to what he could say.

You mean like outing her long before Novack wrote the column. If he was so worried about his wifes cover why did he write those lies. Did he think the administration just sit back and take it? Again he started it and then when he was shown to be a liar and a partisan hack tried to hide behind the CIA and his wife.

And what happened to this?

I'm tired of the discussion with you, Gawain. The appropriate smiley is always this one when conversing with you:

Is that what you always do when you lose? :stupido3:

Red Harvest

11-01-2005, 03:10

Ive said from the start that if the alligations are true he should go to jail. Do you really think I give two craps if you believe me or not? Yes, you are giving me the impression that it concerns you. Claiming you will "lead the pack" doesn't mesh with dragging your feet clinging to any defense claim that comes up.

Is nice to know that you know me better than I do myself. Ive never wittnessed such arrogance on these boards.I know little about you other than your political views expressed here, but you've been as close to a 100 percenter as I have found for conservative GOP politics. Doesn't really matter to me how you claim to vote, as I'm basing it on the opinions you express. Hint: being so fond of calling folks liberals really hurts your libertarian claim.

You mean like outing her long before Novack wrote the column. If he was so worried about his wifes cover why did he write those lies. Did he think the administration just sit back and take it? Again he started it and then when he was shown to be a liar and a partisan hack tried to hide behind the CIA and his wife. Perhaps he wrote the story because he believed the law would protect his wife's status? Both of them appear to have believed (rightly or wrongly) that the CIA analysis was ignored--and parts of it certainly were, but the problem was internal to the CIA. Was it naive to think she could remain undercover with that story about? Probably. That isn't outing her though. It takes someone else to do that. Whether or not he writes a story does not give the Admin cart blanche to commit a crime. He didn't out his wife, Libby and company did. Keep repeating the lie, Gawain. It is the same lie Libby is using, and it looks like you are cut from the same cloth as him since you are propagating the same laughable lie. (Laughable since Libby couldn't seem to find anyone that knew she was a spy until he planted the info, and that included people some people in the Administration!) Time to put that lie to bed. I've yet to hear anything that supports the claim that she was effectively outed until Dubya's team set to work outing here.

Is that what you always do when you lose? :stupido3:
Lose? Hardly. But I don't expect anymore reason from you than the wall would provide.

No, it's really to the point that replying to you is a snoozefest. :dozey: You grab the latest "talking points" (in this case the same tired lines that Libby has been using from the outset) and repeat them. I would prefer something a bit more intellectually stimulating as this is just tedious. ~:rolleyes: