Libby's sentance commuted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's really irrelevant whether Armitage knew her status or not. He was the source of the leak to the media. Once her identity hit the newspapers, anyone who repeated the story isn't revealing much anything.

---

It's certainly relevant whether he knew her status. If you go by the law, that is.

Last I checked, Armitage was one of several sources who spoke to the media. Novak most certainly did not publish just based on Armitage's talk. Declaring that Armitage was the first, so everything else is irrelevant is a little disingenuous. When you have multiple White House officials pimping the intel to multiple reporters (the vast majority of whom didn't take the bait, much to their credit), and when those same White House mouthpieces are fully aware of Plame's status, how are they not in violation of the law?

I liked your very roundabout way of arguing "Clinton did it" a couple of posts ago. Circumspect, good sir!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

He didn't pardon him because Libby and his defense team still think they're likely to win on an appeal. If he's found not guilty on an appeal, the whole issue becomes mute and a pardon is unnecessary. If he were pardoned, Libby would no longer be able to appeal. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear than that.

---

So King George wants to give Libby a chance to clear his good name? Is that your argument? Seriously? (Oh, and the issue would be "moot." Just sayin'.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Where's it say that? Oh right... the "guidelines".

---

Yeah. Stupid "guidelines." Stupid "laws." Stupid "equal treatment under the law."

-edit-

A correction: I've referred to the 29% nation a couple of times, but it seems I was off base. Latest polls show that it is now the 26% nation. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

All you guys ranting on about this are aware Libby still has to pay the $250,000 fine, right?

Quote:

---

"Saying the wrong thing" is an exceptionally polite way of describing stonewalling a prosecutor who's looking at your boss.

---

Armitage was the source of the leak; he wasn't Libby's boss. And if Fitz was able to prove Libby lied, then he should have been able to prove whatever it was that Libby was hiding, right? And yet he hasn't gone after anyone else.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that juries are infallible, but for Pete's sake, there were multiple levels of the justice system that touched on this case.

---

As in The Thin Blue Line case. Keno v New London went all the way to the Supremes who made the wrong choice.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

All you guys ranting on about this are aware Libby still has to pay the $250,000 fine, right?

---

Not anymore he doesn't. It's good to have friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Armitage was the source of the leak; he wasn't Libby's boss.

---

Armitage was not the only source of the leak. Early on, Novak countered criticism by stating that he had multiple sources for the Plame info. Multiple sources. Cheney's office pimped the intel to every reporter with a cell phone. Nobody has seriously disputed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And if Fitz was able to prove Libby lied, then he should have been able to prove whatever it was that Libby was hiding, right? And yet he hasn't gone after anyone else.

---

You're saying that if a prosecutor cannot prove the primary crime, then no related convictions should take place? By this logic, the accountant who successfully blocks a prosecution of a drug dealer should walk free, even if there's clear evidence that he stonewalled or lied. Interesting perspective.

Noted bastion of left-wing extremism, The Economist, has a rather good summation of the mess:

Mr Bush's action serves to remind people of three of his weaknesses. One of them is his tendency towards cronyism, which led him to appoint a wholly unqualified friend to run the government's disaster-relief agency. The consequences were disastrously manifest during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Other examples include his failed attempt to appoint his own lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court. A second flaw is the hold that Mr Cheney appears to have over the man who is nominally his boss. The past few days have seen a series of articles in the Washington Post detailing the extent to which Mr Cheney has talked Mr Bush into bypassing all normal channels of debate to take questionable decisions.

A third effect of the decision, and perhaps the most serious, is that it reinforces the perception that Mr Bush sees himself and his cronies as above the law. Sometimes he has made this explicit, attaching “signing statements” to hundreds of bills sent to him by Congress asserting his right to interpret those bills as he deems fit. Sometimes he has done so covertly, wire-tapping Americans with no authorisation or permitting the use of torture with consequences felt at Abu Ghraib and in secret CIA prisons in black holes like Uzbekistan.

Perhaps, in the end, Mr Bush's decision came down to a simple calculation that he has little left to lose. He is not seeking re-election, his approval ratings can barely go any lower, and any hopes for legacy-polishing bipartisan co-operation with Congress seem to have evaporated. So why should Mr Bush not please his few remaining friends and placate his vice-president by springing the loyal Mr Libby? It makes a kind of sense, but a deeply troubling one. What else, one wonders, might so isolated a president do before he goes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's certainly relevant whether he knew her status. If you go by the law, that is.

---

Novak testified that Armitage did know. But he, apparently, wasn't the fish the Fitzgerald wanted to fry.

Quote:

---

Last I checked, Armitage was one of several sources who spoke to the media. Novak most certainly did not publish just based on Armitage's talk.

---

Again, Novak claims that Armitage was indeed is primary source. Primary- as in, without him, there would have been no story- without said story, there would've been no investigation. Armitage spilled the beans- that's well established.

Read what Novak has to say about Armitage.

Quote:

---

I liked your very roundabout way of arguing "Clinton did it" a couple of posts ago. Circumspect, good sir!

---

I really didn't think I was being roundabout.

Quote:

---

So King George wants to give Libby a chance to clear his good name? Is that your argument? Seriously? (Oh, and the issue would be "moot." Just sayin'.)

---

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'd fully expect a pardon to be forthcoming if the appeals don't pan out.

Quote:

---

Yeah. Stupid "guidelines." Stupid "laws." Stupid "equal treatment under the law."

---

This is really cute. Non-binding guidelines that are created for the executive by the executive are equated to law, and then you somehow drag equal treatment into the comparison. There is a massive lack of perspective for some on this commutation. All presidents in my lifetime- and beyond have pardoned friends, acquaintances, political donors ect. But look out when Bush does it- then it becomes unprecedented and people start predicting armed uprisings and riots in the streets. :dizzy2:

Of course, if you got this bent out of shape for Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, ect., then I applaud your consitency. :bow:

Here's one for the hypocrisy file:two stories, same author. In one, pardons are normal and we're stupid for suspecting otherwise. In the other, it's an outrage that a convicted criminal is rewarded. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

A correction: I've referred to the 29% nation a couple of times, but it seems I was off base. Latest polls show that it is now the 26% nation. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

---

What's the margin of error? :wink:

Quote:

---

Read what Novak has to say about Armitage.

---

Thats quite a funny read , just what you would expect from Novak .
So leaving aside that he is now putting the focus ontoone source rther than the two he originaly said he had , you gotta laugh at him depicting Armitage as being against intervention in Iraq .
It may have escaped your notice but there was a letter calling for US military intervention in Iraq , along with all the usual neo con muppets you would expect to find as signatories to the letter you find a certain fella named Armitage .
That Armitage person in favour of intervention wouldn't be the same fella as this Armitage who according to Novak was against intervention would it ?~:doh:

Why does the President have this particular power anyway? And can he cure diseases merely by touching you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Why does the President have this particular power anyway? And can he cure diseases merely by touching you?

---

It's a throw-back to our colonial days, and royal prerogatives.

Only the diseases of due process and equal treatment, apparently.

Why, for my sins, have I been given the two most immovable rocks in the Backroom to joust with?

Xiahou, I'm sure you believe in the correctness of your position, but let's be honest -- you're way out in left field on this one. You're off on the fringes. You can make a cogent argument, but that neither makes you correct nor persuasive.

Your reasoning about allowing an appeal with a special backup of pardon magic is just freaky. I'm sure it makes sense inside your head, but from the outer perspective, it's just kind of nonsensical.

Frankly, I think I've said plenty about the issue, and I'm vanishingly uninterested in going toe-to-toe again over the same gah-ing points. What's more, I've experienced how contentious you can be when you feel like being quarrelsome and lawyerly. I don't see much point in reducing my enjoyment of the Backroom by being drawn into a multi-page re-hashing of every single angle of this complicated case with a Backroomer who can be as obtuse and unyielding as party loyalty demands.

There's a small fringe of right wingers who believe that the commutation is fine and dandy. Polling shows that it plays like a stinky fish with half of republicans, and a wide majority independents and democrats.

It doesn't pass the smell test, and no amount of tortured logic will change that. Now run along, and declare victory. "Mission Accomplished!"

Lemur, one must remember that those whom support this clemency decision still remain entreched with the idea that Nixon was railroaded. Facts about the wrongdoings of their icons mean less to them than their maintaining the purist vision they fabricate to continue their neocon support for them.

It just is the way it is. Someone once said something to the effect that argueing with a fool only makes themselves look foolish. A fool cares less about the reality of a thing, than whether there is a way to deny it if it challanges their preconceived notions. It just is the way it is.

All this hooplah about Fitzgerald not going after the real villians; while ignoring how he was stonewalled - or that he has moved along to a higher position. Then we have the arguement that Valery wasn't a covert operative - as though there is an imaginary light switch that turns off and on for a covert, rather than once a spy always a spy - because by outting them they also out all their previous contacts and continuing operations (fronts) they were involved with.

Still, what the hey. Some can admire this type of entrenchment to believe only what is fed to them along political party lines. As long as it agrees with what they want to believe - damned the facts. It is a "that's my story (belief) ... and I'm sticking to it" world for them. It doesn't matter that their icons break the laws they purport to believe in (when they apply to those of the opposition), or that their iconic lords no longer adhere to the very political principles (balanced budget, limited government, etc) that originally drew them to support their lords.

End Rant
http://patrickfitzgerald.blogspot.com
Somewhere in his blog, Mr. Fitzpatrick gives his opinion on this mess - enjoy.

Quote:

---

Well Lemur , Gawain labours under several false assumptions that have long been proven false and tries to build on that , the first has been shown as false for the past 4 years

---

No you do. What has been proven false? Be specific.

Again no one was found guilty of the original charges as Fitzgerald knew by the second day who was the leaker. Now please again tell me why the investigation continued?

The sad truth is if Libby had told what you call the true story no one would be in jail.

Quote:

---

No you do. What has been proven false? Be specific.

---

Specific ????
Do you mean something like the CIA saying in 2003 she was covered under the legislation as a covert operative ?
Or would you like the government comittee saying in 2007 she was covered under the legislation ?
Would you like the specific legislation that she was covered under ?
What sort of specific do you require Gawain ?
Would you like it to be fact or "FACT" ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Do you mean something like the CIA saying in 2003 she was covered under the legislation as a covert operative ?
Or would you like the government comittee saying in 2007 she was covered under the legislation ?
Would you like the specific legislation that she was covered under ?
What sort of specific do you require Gawain ?

---

Sure be my guest. And how about showing the specific legislation that this case is based on . Not only that if this is so why isnt Armitage in jail?

Quote:

---

Patrick Fitzgerald never found enough evidence to charge Libby or anyone else with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act in the CIA-leak affair. From the beginning of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew who revealed CIA employee Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak, and it wasn’t Libby. (That honor goes to former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage.) The fact that there was a special prosecutor at all was more the result of bureaucratic infighting and political cowardice in the Bush administration than of any wrongdoing by Libby or the others who were investigated. And finally, the discrepancies between Libby’s grand-jury testimony and that of the journalists who contradicted him can be explained by differences in memory, and should not have resulted in perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges against Libby. Anyone who watched Libby’s trial knows it was a parade of conflicting memories, and reasonable people could disagree with the jury’s verdict.

---

What more need be said. Beside the fact that Wilson lied about the yelow cake and the forged documents and that his wife had nothing to do with sending him. All this tax payer money to hang Libby on some BS charge.

LINK

The only thing you have to hang onto is that she was undercover because the CIA says so. The same CIA who said there were nukes in Iraq. Of course they have no dog in this fight.

Let's review how this began and how the investigation is continuing (though it has moved to congress.

First: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040130.html
Now, one may not appreciate the source of summary, but it is accurate.

Second, from Wilson's perspective - and the reason for his wife being outted:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Third, the Whitehouse withdraws it claims of WMDs:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562312.shtml

Finally, the fat lady hasn't finished singing over the issue of Plame's covert status being outted by the Bushys. As a matter of fact , the beginning of it may have ended - but, the congressional investigations are just beginning. As well as their investigation into the reasons for going to war.:

http://oversight.house.gov/investiga...Agent+Identity

Be careful what you wish for Gawain, because I suspect you are going to get it. Full investigations into Rove, Cheney, Bush, etc's involvement in Plame and lying to Congress.

:book:

Quote:

---

Second, from Wilson's perspective - and the reason for his wife being outted:

---

Which is an outright lie. According to congress and just a slip by Wilson himself.

What was the Whitehouse trying to cover up? That Wilson lied about it all?

Quote:

---

As reported in the July 10, 2004, Washington Post:

- - - - - - -

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.

---

Quote:

---

Why Wilson is a Liar and Wrong - The Dummies Guide

Posted by Dorkafork

A brief overview:

Sent at the behest of the Vice President: This was language used by Nicholas Kristof (among others). This is disingenuous. He was not specifically asked by the office of the Vice President to go to Niger, nor was anyone specifically asked by the VP's office to go to Niger. The CIA at a lower level decided on its own to send someone to get more information to help answer a question that a senior administration official had asked. But this is a little thing. I am willing to give Wilson a pass on this and assume it was just a case of reporters lying, and not Wilson himself. I am magnanimous on this, because he has been caught red-handed in other lies. Even though it is possible that Wilson lied about this to reporters, the same way he lied about...

The forged Niger documents: Wilson told his story to several reporters, saying that he had seen documents that were impossible for him to have seen. A deliberate effort to ensure "that this story has legs", one that got him "cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian." Specifically cited by Kristof, who said "this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus." Also cited by Pincus, who reported "Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." According to the SSCI report(pdf), Wilson admitted he was the source for the WaPo article, but claimed he "misspoke." As Tom Maguire put it recently, "Kristof, Pincus of the WaPo, and Judis and Ackerman of The New Republic all misheard him?"

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."*: Flat out lie. The SSCI report(pdf) is a must-read, from pg. 36 onwards. Plame recommended him for the trip and convened the meeting where his trip was initially discussed.

(The Art of Weaselly Semi-Corrections by Kaus today on Kristof is a must read.)

Even if he had not lied, he would simply be wrong. He asked former officials (none of whom were currently serving in the Nigerien government) about a deal that they would be unlikely to admit to. He then comes back with a piece of information that the analysts thought bolstered the case that Iraq was seeking a uranium deal with Niger. And yet, somehow he believes he disproved that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He's either lying or he is a fool who, like many on the left, do not understand the difference between "sought" and "obtained". (Not the first words they've had trouble understanding.)

---

Its obvious they would want to discredit Wilson how would outing his wife accomplish this? Besides it was proven early on that the administration had nothing to do with it. It was a gotcha game and Bush lost. He should have pursued the lying SOB wilson on the truth of the matter. Again no one was ever even charged with anything close to the original charges. Fitzgerald knew the truth. So what justice did Libby obstruct?

Jesus H Christ people, do you REALLY think that VP Cheney himself ordered the random husband of a CIA administrative employee to go to Niger and try and validate the yellowcake claims????? This IS the crux of the matter. And the answer is of course, NO.

So imagine Cheney's surprise when there is suddenly some bumble**** making op-eds in the NYT and giving speeches about how he was ordered there personally by the VP, and that the VP and P are misrepresenting his findings.

This is such a joke. The ONLY way to properly explain Wilson's opportunism and self-serving lies was to explain that he was NOT in fact sent there by the office of the VP, but was sent by his wife...who continually committed perjury herself in claiming that it wasn't her hand that sent him, despite evidence to the contrary. And you can't explain Joe Wilson's role there without explaining who his wife was/is, i.e. a CIA (non-undercover, so no "cover" to blow") employee. Its that simple.

More importantly, what is lost in all this is that Wilson himself lied about what he "discovered" or didn't discover, as evidenced by the findings of both the British Intelligence services and later a Senate Intelligence Report in our own country, whereby it was determined that there WAS credible evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger. But hey, don't pay attention to any of that, or the fact that these partisan hacks have made millions in book deals, speaking gigs, and have suffered absolutely not at all. Let them lie, and despite the fact that it was public knowledge who she was, and that such public knowledge was necessary to understanding the false nature of Joe Wilson's representation of himself and his mission, lets send Libby to jail because he didn't remember where he first heard Plame's name (i.e. Novak).

How interesting that Novak knew Plames name before he ever contacted Libby. Yea, she was "undercover" all right. This is a full blown national emergency.

What justice did Scooter lie about? Well, there is that little thing about lying to and attempting to deceive Congress. Isn't that what he was charged with, and found guilty by a jury of his peers?

Read the House Oversights cases under investigation, this ain't dead by a long shot. Remember, Rove has yet to comply with turning over his email (illegally hidden and purportedly deleted by the RNC) - and Bush has until August to turn over his administrations papers concerning this and the documents they based the reasons for invading Iraq. Of course in August, Bush will proclaim executive privilege and we'll have more delay - but, legally his options are becoming fewer. So, it is purely a delaying action to see if they can stonewall long enough for him to get out of DC before anything becomes evident that will force congress to impeach him, Cheney, etc.

Hanging on to the idea that Libby did nothing wrong simply demonstrates ones stubborness in not accepting the truths of the matter, and buying into some farfetched excuse that because Scooter is Scooter it ought to be realized he is above the strict letter of the law. He's special because of who he knows and where his loyalties lie.

BTW, even the CIA knew there was no uranium yellow cake - or is your selective memory in full gear to reject anything that disagrees with the warrantless conclusions you hold on so dearly to?

Timeline of the case - and more if you search it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030600916.html

Now, things I've found that claim Wilson was wrong (and the CIA, FBI, etc.) submit that 500Tons of yellowcake uraniun was found. Of course if this were true why did Bush confess that no WMDs existed?

Thing is there are many think alikes out there willing to accept any excuse not to accept the facts. It doesn't make them right or wrong - only delusional.

:wall:

Quote:

---

What justice did Scooter lie about? Well, there is that little thing about lying to and attempting to deceive Congress. Isn't that what he was charged with, and found guilty by a jury of his peers

---

Deceive them about what?

Quote:

---

BTW, even the CIA knew there was no uranium yellow cake - or is your selective memory in full gear to reject anything that disagrees with the warrantless conclusions you hold on so dearly to?

---

Im showing you that Wilson lied. There was nothing to cover up. He in fact strengthened the administrations case:smash: Did you read the Senate report on him? Even he admitted he made it up. Do you understand the difference between trying to get and getting?

This whole thing is a farce. The New York Times is guilty of much worse.

Quote:

---

Which is an outright lie.

---

This comimg from Gawain of Porkies:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I felt I was done with this thread, but I want to clarify one last thing. When I say that people who are supporting the President and demanding a pardon are on the fringe, that statement can't really stand without some substantiation. Some recent polling gives perspective:

When asked to choose, 66% think Bush "should not have intervened at all" on Lewis "Scooter" Libby's behalf; 13% think he "was right to commute Libby's sentence;" 6% think Bush should have granted Libby a full pardon.

Six percent. That's the size of the true-blue "conservative" faithful, which is to say Republicans who value their party above their nation.

Another interesting bit of polling -- the pardon plays far worse with Independents than it does with Democrats.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ardonlarge.png

There, all done now.

The first thing one must remember in all this is that the documents used to "prove" that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium were proven to be forgeries. Remember, also, that Tony Blaire was involved in showing these docs to the Bushys - and he ended up with egg on his face for it.

Thing is, Wilson didn't lie - his objective in the investigation was limited and assigned by a CIA committee, not his wife as some would wish you to believe (she did drop his name to her superiors - but, then he did have access to the men in Niger the CIA wanted answers about). Thing is, the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee was concluded in 2004 - does it surprise you that those attempting to punch holes in it took 3 years to read the report? And, all in an effort to support Scooter. Sad really, when one considers how they twist reality to fit what they want to resemble as being a replacement for the truth.

I suppose, to support your supposition that Wilson lied is from that report from NewsMax? I read it, btw, but it uses the opinions of GOP Senators as being more substantial in the matter than the actual report. Sad isn't it?
Or, is the "dummyguide" your preferable source? Interesting selection that.

Here is Joe Wilson's take on the matter (back in 2005 when this all meant something more than Libby lying to and deceiving Congress):
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../con05233.html

You might also take into consideration Valeries testimony to the Senate Committee investigating her outting - you know the one that Scooter lied in. It obviously won't change your mind, but it did for many GOP congressmen.

Still, don't let the truth get in the way of your entrenchment.

:wall:

I was going to let this lie. But not after seeing these lies

Quote:

---

Thing is, Wilson didn't lie

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

- his objective in the investigation was limited and assigned by a CIA committee, not his wife as some would wish you to believe (she did drop his name to her superiors - but, then he did have access to the men in Niger the CIA wanted answers about).

---

No one said his wife sent him but that she recommended him. He lied and said she had NOTHING at all to do with it.

Quote:

---

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."*: Flat out lie.

---

Quote:

---

The first thing one must remember in all this is that the documents used to "prove" that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium were proven to be forgeries. Remember, also, that Tony Blaire was involved in showing these docs to the Bushys - and he ended up with egg on his face for it.

---

Not by Wilson he never saw them and had lied again.

Quote:

---

The forged Niger documents: Wilson told his story to several reporters, saying that he had seen documents that were impossible for him to have seen. A deliberate effort to ensure "that this story has legs", one that got him "cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian." Specifically cited by Kristof, who said "this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus." Also cited by Pincus, who reported "Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." According to the SSCI report(pdf), Wilson admitted he was the source for the WaPo article, but claimed he "misspoke." As Tom Maguire put it recently, "Kristof, Pincus of the WaPo, and Judis and Ackerman of The New Republic all misheard him?"

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Here is Joe Wilson's take on the matter (back in 2005 when this all meant something more than Libby lying to and deceiving Congress):
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../con05233.html

---

Pretty funny stuff :laugh4:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Errrrr...perhaps they didn't tell them about the doubts of the reliability for his January '03 speech because they had already told them for the October '02 speech:dizzy2:

Tell me if this whole thing was about who leaked Plames name and they knew it was Armitage why hasnt he been charged with anything?

Just re-read the 1947 IIPA.

By the definition of that statute, Ms. Plame -- having served as a classified and clandestine officer for the CIA -- can only be viewed as having "covert" status and that status is retained for life. I was unable to find any later ammendment noting any limitations thereto.


As to whether or not anyone could be tried under this act for Ms. Plame's outing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IIPA 1947

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. {emphasis added by Seamus}

---

Richard Armitage, the actual leaker, may well have concluded from Washington "common knowledge" that the USA was not taking any such affirmative measures to conceal the relationship. I suspect that some of the examples to which Gawain alludes would have been used in any defense, so prosecutor Fitzgerald weighed the potential for a successful prosecution and declined.

It may well be that he should have concluded his efforts at this point, written a nasty report about Armitage and company's sloppy security efforts, and moved on.

However, given what we pay them, there is organizational pressure on any such special prosecution to produce measurable results -- convictions being the currency of that exchange. Fitzgerald was entitled by his charter to query more people to see if anyone aside from Armitage had been directly involved, and he did so.

During this phase of the investigation, Mr. Libby provided sworn testimony that -- according to witnesses found credible by a jury in a court of law -- was a lie. The jury further concluded that there was no reasonable doubt of Mr. Libby's intent. That Libby was raked over the coals repeatedly during the investigation by a prosecutor who was apparently desperate to pin something on someone somewhere in the administration is irrelevant under the law -- Mr. Libby chose not to answer fully and truthfully.

I have my suspicions as to the motivation of Fitzgerald and company -- and personally think they should have ended the probe after the first week or so once the leak had been identified -- but their crappy motivations have little to do with the proper and legal response to a legally sanctioned inquiry. One does not have to enjoy a legal "proctoscope" exam, but according to our laws one must submit to it and not attempt to deceive. Though someone in the Justice department, reviewing ongoing results, should have brought pressure on Fitz to conclude -- he already had the answer.

Did Wilsonand company bait a trap that Fitz used to hammer the Bush Admin -- I think so -- but the trap worked as designed. "They're stinkers for doing this silly stuff" is not a good defense.


Logically, ANY future administration official should answer future investigations with:

Name, Date of Birth, and and endless repetition of availing themselves of their rights under the 5th ammendment to our Constitution.

Im glad at least one person here with a brain here agrees with me.

Quote:

---

Im glad at least one person here with a brain here agrees with me

---

Agrees with what ? half of what you have written here is completely untrue , if you cannot make your point without resorting to falsehoods then you have no case to make .

Quote:

---

Agrees with what ?

---

He said the same thing I did but more cohernetly so you cant pick on him like you do on me. Im not the greatest communicator when it comes to the written word. But I agree with every thing he said and its pretty much what I said.

Quote:

---

But I agree with every thing he said and its pretty much what I said.

---

So you said Plame was covered under the legislation , the law was broken , Libby did lie under oath, people shouldn't lie and there was no defense for lying .
Wow I must have missed that post you made:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

So you said Plame was covered under the legislation

---

I said she wasnt and he said she most likely wasnt either and that why Fitzgerald didnt pursue the matter

Quote:

---

the law was broken

---

Yes i did

Quote:

---

Libby did lie under oath

---

I said that and that he should have been convicted for it.

Quote:

---

Wow I must have missed that post you made

---

Maybe if you werent so busy laughing at yourself and patting yourself on the back you would notice.

Quote:

---

I said she wasnt and he said she most likely wasnt either and that why Fitzgerald didnt pursue the matter

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
try again , perhaps read the bit he bolded:yes: thats the key ,not to her status but on the actions of the leakers .

I do agree with Gawain that the real motivation behind this investigation was "gotcha" politics and that virtually nothing of substance was achieved by the conviction of Mr. Libby. Both sides have played this kind of legal inquisition game to malf with the other party since 1973. For the most part, it ticks me off as it is, most of the time, a waste of tax dollars since the real goal is political advantage and not ferreting out and ending malfeasance.

Setting that aside, the administration fell into the political trap laid out in front of them. Libby mis-managed his own story and ended up catching the heat for it, whereas others in the administration avoided lying, but thoughtfully included information about the affair that would have made it difficult to prosecute them successfully. Libby was, effectively, low-hanging fruit for Fitz, so he caught the chop.

Commuting his sentence is an insipid half-effort. Either letting the sentence stand (we are not above the law points) our outright pardon (I'll protect my own points) would have made better sense.

Quote:

---

I do agree with Gawain that the real motivation behind this investigation was "gotcha" politics and that virtually nothing of substance was achieved by the conviction of Mr. Libby.

---

No problem at all with that , the problem begins when people go beyond that and claim that certain things are true when they are clearly not .

Quote:

---

try again , perhaps read the bit he bolded thats the key ,not to her status but on the actions of the leakers .

---

Maybe you should read his last reply then.

Quote:

---

I do agree with Gawain that the real motivation behind this investigation was "gotcha" politics and that virtually nothing of substance was achieved by the conviction of Mr. Libby. Both sides have played this kind of legal inquisition game

---

That is exactly what I said.

Quote:

---

Maybe you should read his last reply then.

---

Too slow old boy :whip:

Quote:

---

That is exactly what I said.

---

Ah but it isn't is it , maybe you should read my last reply :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and then read all that you said in this thread ...and all the other threads about this topic .:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Ah but it isn't is it , maybe you should read my last reply and then read all that you said in this thread ...and all the other threads about this topic .

---

Maybe if you werent such a picayune :daisy: you would realise Im correct.
He even agrees with me on the highlited part.

Banquo's Law (after Godwin):

When all a thread has left is a Gawain and Tribesman love-in, the subject is exhausted.

I have a vision of a late night pub, with just two patrons left, arguing because they don't fancy the walk home.

Time, gentlemen, please.

:closed: