A new Gallup Poll reports on a Libby pardon and offers a ray of sunshine to The Few, The Proud that eagerly await a Libby pardon:
Americans 3-to-1 Against a Libby Pardon
...Sixty-seven percent say George W. Bush should not pardon Libby, while only 21% believe he should.No major subgroup shows majority support for a pardon. Republicans (34%), though, are more likely than independents (21%) and Democrats (11%) to favor one.
Wait, that's not the sunshine - here we go:
The poll finds that those who are paying the closest attention to the trial are most likely to support a pardon, at 44%.
This finding is not because of underlying partisan differences in the likelihood of following the trial, as 45% of both Democrats and Republicans report following the trial closely. Rather, it appears that a substantial proportion of those familiar with the specifics of the trial may believe that Libby was treated unfairly enough to justify a pardon. For example, some have suggested that the special prosecutor made Libby a "fall guy" for the White House in the investigation. Those who are not familiar with the specifics of the case are more likely responding to the general notion that persons convicted of crimes do not deserve the special treatment a pardon imparts.
Just glancing at the data (excerpted below) I will declare that among folks following the case we have battled to a statistical draw. That is not a victory, but among the cognoscenti, we are hardly The Few.
MORE ON THE DATA:
These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 11-14, 2007. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points.
That 3% range will apply to the full sample, but press on:
34. How closely have you been following the news about the recently completed trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former vice presidential aide -- very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?
Very closely 13%; Somewhat closely 30%; Not too closely 26%; Not at all 29%?
So roughly 130 respondents followed the trial closely. For that subset, the 2 standard deviation range of error would be about 8% - hence, a result of 44 to 55 can not be declared with confidence to be statistically out of the range that might have ocurred if the "true" distribution were 50-50.
NOTE: I used 2* [(.5*.5)/130]^.5 to get 8.8%, but stats mavens are encouraged to jump in here.
Tom Maquire,
What, you have NO comments on the Plame testimony today.
She tstified under oath that she indeed was a covert officer and that she traveled abroad during past five years to perform work in that capacity.
Guess that's why the CIA referred the leak of her idendity for criminal investigation.
Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I know this is so many scandals ago as to be ancient history, and poor taste to bring it up, but ...
Valerie Plame under oath: "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority"
Posted by: obsessed | March 16, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Uh oh. Davis just propagated a falsehood, saying that there was immediately an investigation from DoJ, which might obviate the need for an investigation from the White House folks who deal with clearance and such. In fact, of course, there was not a DoJ investigation until late September 2003, almost three months later. Davis seems unaware of that.
Posted by: Jeff | March 16, 2007 at 01:00 PM
TM --
I am also surprised that you are not covering the V P Wilson testimony. The most amazing thing so far is that the AP coverage makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of Richard Armitage, the man who actually "outed" her to the press. I guess Team Wilson is trying to airbrush this inconvenient truth out of the narrative because it does not help either with the lawsuit or their adoration by the BDS crowd.
It's your site and you can cover what you like. But I would love a takedown of her testimony.
Posted by: theo | March 16, 2007 at 01:00 PM
I am casting about for some useful reporting - pach at firedog seems to be doing a fact-free live-rant.
As to her not having sent Joe, there is a very funny follow-up at The Corner:
She didn't recommend him - she just went to her boss with the guy who pitched the idea, conveyed it to her hubby, and wrote the recommending email, all after recommending him for his 1999 trip.
Gee, I see why folks like Grenier and Harlow were confused. But thanks for clearing that up.
she traveled abroad during past five years to perform work in that capacity.
Guess that's why the CIA referred the leak of her idendity for criminal investigation.
Bad guess - the CIA referred a routine leak of classified information, NOT a leak of a covert agent's status.
Oddly, the WaPo got that right today.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | March 16, 2007 at 01:01 PM
Oops, looks like there was no investigation by the WH into who leaked this information. Bush lied (again).
Posted by: abib | March 16, 2007 at 01:07 PM
Hey Tom - still think she wasn't covert?
Posted by: abib | March 16, 2007 at 01:08 PM
Greg Richards has a fine artilce up today.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/predicate_for_a_pardon.html>Predicate for a Pardon
As his article makes clear, the disclosure of Plame;s identity is directly and inextricably enmeshed in the CIA's many failures. And Davis made the same point in his opening at the hearings today.
Val did admit to being at the Dem Senate Policy Committee meeting and at the meeting her husband had with Kristof when he floated this crock. Do you think she was his second source? Why do you think she was there--to pour the coffee?
Posted by: clarice feldman | March 16, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Clarice - still think she wasn't covert?
Posted by: abib | March 16, 2007 at 01:11 PM
I might be wrong, but I thought I heard Plame say -- under questioning from Cummings -- that she'd traveled outside of the U.S. to perform covert work within the last five years. Not within 5 years of 2003, but within the *last* five years. Did I hear that correctly?
Posted by: Jim E. | March 16, 2007 at 01:13 PM
clarice,
Plame testified that she was not a source for Kristof.
Posted by: Jim E. | March 16, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Hmmmm.
"Clarice - still think she wasn't covert?"
Yeah I think she wasn't covert.
And yes I think she's bullshitting in her testimony because she thinks nobody can or will call her on it.
Posted by: ed | March 16, 2007 at 01:14 PM
If she was covert--it was under some agency nomenclature, not within the meaning of the IIPA.
TM BTW has repeatedly indicates that travel overseas is not apparently stationed overseas w/in the meaning of the IIPA either.
Posted by: clarice feldman | March 16, 2007 at 01:17 PM
Jim E. If she said she was not a source for Kristof, what was she doing there while her husband spun his tale about a classified mission for the CIA?
Posted by: clarice feldman | March 16, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Hmmm.
Frankly it's idiot crap like this that irritates me about the GOP.
You'd think they'd learn that they should have confronted Wilson right upfront and in his face. The fact that Plame was identified as the one recommending her husband in several official reports would be enough for this. Or the fact that it can be proven that Wilson lied out of his ass.
But Republicans still don't have a spine.
Posted by: ed | March 16, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Jim E.,
I am sure you understand the difference between travelling outside the US and being posted outside the US. The IIPA only covers people stationed outside the US, not those that may travel on occasion. Thus, she was not "covert" by the definision that matters to the IIPA.
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2007 at 01:19 PM
still think she wasn't covert?
a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
she does not meet IIPA definition of covert, she can call herself whatever she wants.
bottom line, in the eyes of the law, not covert.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 01:19 PM
Where are all the Rep. congressman? No spines and braindead
Posted by: Southside | March 16, 2007 at 01:20 PM
Plame testified that she was not a source for Kristof.
she testified that she was only at the meeting briefly. she did not elaborate if this meant ten seconds, twenty minutes, or three hours.
she testified that she did not see how he could have considered her a source.
so, no she did not directly answer the inquiry. perhaps when hell freezes over kristoff will elaborate.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Not a single Republican on the panel disputed whether she was covert. They've been briefed on this.
Posted by: Jim E. | March 16, 2007 at 01:21 PM
"Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.
But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.
Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby's trial said it was clear that Plame's job was classified. However, Fitzgerald said flatly at the courthouse after the verdict that Plame's job was classified.
Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee, said, "No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone _ the fact that I worked for the CIA _ should have put up a red flag."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031600276.html>Covert my eye
Posted by: clarice feldman | March 16, 2007 at 01:22 PM
Where are all the Rep. congressman? No spines and braindead
sadly, business as usual, on both sides of the aisle. our best and brightest run like hell from cesspool that is congress.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Change of topic? Are the Plame hearings so discouraging you are plumbing the polls for any good news? Good luck.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Also, I do have to laugh about the fact that no one will hire Wilson as a consultant any more. Do you think that blabbing all over DC about things the people who asked you do to them thought you would keep quiet about would hurt getting gigs? He'd probably be hauling down millions a year right now if he had kept his mouth shut about his trip. What goes around does come around. He cahsed in his long term prosepects for a short term gamble on getting into a Kerry administration. He chose poorly.
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2007 at 01:23 PM
"He'd probably be hauling down millions a year right now if he had kept his mouth shut about his trip."
Funny, I thought the right-wing talking point was that Wilson *had* cashed in on all of this -- book deal, speaking engagements, etc. Hard to keep the disparaging comments straight.
Posted by: Jim E. | March 16, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Some excerpts from the Wapo link for reference:
Attorney General John Ashcroft decided to open a criminal investigation but three months later recused himself because the probe led into the White House. Patrick J. Fitgerald, the U.S. attorney for northern Illinois, became special counsel and began to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."
In February 2004, after reviewing what the FBI had, Fitzgerald widened his investigation to include "any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure," plus any efforts to obstruct the probe.
Regardless of the terminology, the Identities Act proved irrelevant in the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Fitzgerald prosecuted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff for perjury and obstruction of justice based on answers about the case that Libby gave to the FBI and the grand jury.
Nonetheless, some of Libby's supporters have invoked "covert" as if it were central to his indictment and conviction.
It's impossible for outsiders to know precisely what Plame did as a CIA case officer, because the dates and details of her overseas postings and trips are secret.
Posted by: sylvia | March 16, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Memmorriiiesss, all alone in the mmoooonlight ...
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Friday backed off its earlier contention that then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys — an act that led to a firestorm of criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
"It has been described as her idea but ... I don't want to try to vouch for origination," said White House press secretary Tony Snow, who previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea. "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."
Posted by: abib | March 16, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Wilson's job opportunities? Jesus, what lengths people have to go to slime someone. The Republicans ship is sinking under Bush and your attacking Wilson job chances. Republican priorities are highly skewed.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 01:28 PM
Oh, and techinally, anybody who travels overseas from the CIA on a Diplomatic passport is "covert" in that their identity as a CIA operative is hidden. I have a feeling that is what she means when she says she was "covert." It's just that it is a level of "covertness" not covered by the IIPA.
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2007 at 01:28 PM
Whoops ...
BOMBSHELL: White House Security Chief Reveals -- No Probe of Plame Leak There
NEW YORK Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congresisonal committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.
The White House had first opposed Knodell testifying but after a threat of a subpoena from the committee yesterday he was allowed to appear today.
Knodell has testified that those who had participated in the leaking of classified information were required to attest to this and he was aware that no one, including Karl Rove, had done that.
He said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: "I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office," he said.
Posted by: abib | March 16, 2007 at 01:29 PM
Okay this is what I don't understand legally. Don't you need a specific law first that you think was broken before you start an investigation? Ashcroft started a criminal investigation -to what crime? The IIPA, which specifically talks about "covert" was listed in the indictment, so that didn't apply.
Shouldn't they then have listed some more applicable law instead in the indictment as their reason? So Fitz broadened his search to include "any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure"? Apparently, there isn't any specific classified information law in the US for such situations. If there is no law for this, doesn't that mean there is no probable cause to warrant an investigation?
Posted by: sylvia | March 16, 2007 at 01:30 PM
The IIPA only covers people stationed outside the US, not those that may travel on occasion.
This is stating as fact what is at best a highly questionable interpretation from a Republican operative (Toensing) that carries no legal authority. The language of the statute says the relevant intelligence officer, to be covered by the statute as covert, has to have served overseas within the previous five years. Toensing's gloss of service within five years as having been stationed outside the U.S. is just that, a gloss, not a fact. It is eminently disputable, it is nowhere supported by one iota of actual legislative history (as opposed to Toensing's retrospectively constructed secret legislative history, which obviously has no legal standing) or by existing precedents.
I noticed that Davis sort of fudged his earlier falsehood later on, making it sound like a criminal investigation was initiated with CIA's referral to DoJ in July 2003. Of course, that's not the case. The criminal investigation was not started until September 2003.
Posted by: Jeff | March 16, 2007 at 01:31 PM
sferris,
That's from Vals whinning about how tough things have been since this whole thing started. Poor Wilsons are having to live off of their book royalties and speaking engagements. No one will hire Joe as a consultant any more. Well, that's what happens when you talk out of school. He did choose poorly.
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Tom, off topic but very interesting. Soros has an insider trading investigation coming due to his sale of ARXT.
NY Post reports a big sale by billionaire financier George Soros has rattled investors in Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, the specialty pharmaceutical co and maker of the popular cold and flu medicine Mucinex. Two days ago, a fund controlled by Soros and his associates sold its entire stake in Adams, about 1.7 mln shares, for proceeds of roughly $44 mln. The fund, Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund, was one of the co's largest and longest investors. The sale comes as Adams faces potential competition from other drug makers that want to make a generic version of Mucinex, which makes up the bulk of its profits. A spokeswoman for Adams said Soros was an original venture-capital backer of the co and has been steadily divesting his stake since the co went public in 2005, adding that that is part of the normal investing cycle of any venture-capital fund.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03152007/business/mucinex_is_hit_by_soros_business_zachery_kouwe.htm
Adams Respiratory-ARXT issues Q3 guidance, says trade orders lower than expected. The Company believes that lower-than-anticipated trade orders during the fiscal 2007 third quarter coupled with a lack of severity in the reported levels of upper respiratory ailments will impact net sales of our major products for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Company expects to report net sales in the range of $80 million to $85 million for the fiscal 2007 third quarter vs. consensus of $110.01M. For the 2007 fiscal year, Adams expects net revenue to be in the range of $320 million to $335 million vs. consensus of $381.23M.
He sold north of 38, stock is currently south of 28 days after his sale. He needs a lawyer, and not Martha's!
Posted by: abe | March 16, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Jeff,
Toensing negotiated the language of the law with the CIA when it was written. I think she knows the legislative intent behind it better than anyone at the moment.
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2007 at 01:32 PM
If Val is typical of CIA types protecting the USA from WMDs I am glad I live in Mexico.
An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger
yes, very upsetting, being asked to actually check something out about WMDs
and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.
probably the janitor
She said she was ambivalent about the idea because she didn't want to have to put her 2 year-old twins to bed by herself at night.
yes, my personal comfort is more important than national security
Still, she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor.
true heroes!!
Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in.
you know, lets at least appear to be working
be afraid, be very afraid
Posted by: windansea | March 16, 2007 at 01:33 PM
If she said she was not a source for Kristof, what was she doing there while her husband spun his tale about a classified mission for the CIA?
Posted by: clarice feldman | March 16, 2007 at 10:18 AM
What she means is, she never signed an agreement with Kristof that stated, I will be your source, nor did she receive money from Kristof. They spoke with one another, but being a source is all in the eyes of the...source?
Posted by: azaghal | March 16, 2007 at 01:33 PM
I am not sure how much good it does to get caught up in the legalisms. At this point, this testimony is about politics, not legalities. Her point is that whether she was covert for IIPA purposes is not a big deal -- she was "covert" in the ordinary sense of that word in that her employment by the CIA was not generally known and transmitting that infomation, even if not criminal, was surely not a good thing.
She is clearly on a political mission to go after the White House. She fudges by mentioning, almost in passing, the role of the "State Department," as though Armitage was some lackey for Bush/Rove/Hitler on this.
I suppose it is just too much to ask the country to understand that while nominally a "senior administration official" Armitage was on a mission of his own when he caused the leak that got into the press.
Did she name Armitage in her civil suit? If not, why not?
Posted by: theo | March 16, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Anyone want to make a prediction on whether Gonzales and Rove tenures have come to and end? I'll venture they're both gone by next week. Someone needs to take the heat off the White House and Gonzales's resignation isn't going to cut it.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 01:35 PM
BOMBSHELL: White House Security Chief Reveals -- No Probe of Plame Leak There
they were probably too worried about protecting America, and didnt want to spend a lot of time on this empty 'bombshell'.
yes, they've got their priorities straight.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 01:37 PM
sferris --
Your prediction about Rove's resignation seems to echo the "reporting" of Jason Leopold. I guess you can keep hope alive.
Posted by: theo | March 16, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Anyone want to make a prediction on whether Gonzales and Rove tenures have come to and end? I'll venture they're both gone by next week.
gonzales, who cares. I'd rather have another ashcroft.
Rove. He's not going anywhere.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 01:38 PM
If she said she was not a source for Kristof, what was she doing there while her husband spun his tale about a classified mission for the CIA?
Posted by: clarice feldman | March 16, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Maybe she just said something like "I heard that too, but I'm not ever(n).... sure it's true."
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Did she name Armitage in her civil suit? If not, why not?
yes, she did add armitage.
sadly, this suit is due to get dismissed soon enough. no there, there.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 01:40 PM
IIPA was specifically drafted as a double edged sword. Agee had justified his treason with the argument that the CIA was hiding covert action by huddling under the "classified" shield.
IIPA addressed that assertion by setting strict rules for the CIA. I expect Toensining will explore that fact.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 16, 2007 at 01:41 PM
The Republicans ship is sinking under Bush
'The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.' -Twain
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 01:42 PM
An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger
Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in.
Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA.
this looks like perjury to me, since her email was sent the day before Cheney asked CIA to check out the NIger info
Posted by: windansea | March 16, 2007 at 01:44 PM
If your listening to the Waxman hearings, it doesn't appear Rove will be able to keep his security clearance much longer. Would he stay if his security clearance is revoked? The hearing in a very dramatic way are asking all the questions the White House has tried to avoid. Wouldn't it have been better to have gotten all the information out years ago? Hindsight is always 20/20.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 01:46 PM
Hmmmm.
this looks like perjury to me, since her email was sent the day before Cheney asked CIA to check out the NIger info
That's pretty interesting.
Posted by: ed | March 16, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Hmmm.
If your listening to the Waxman hearings, it doesn't appear Rove will be able to keep his security clearance much longer.
Frankly Rove is vastly overrated and I would personally welcome him exiting the scene ... except ... that it would otherwise remove a burr from every liberal's ass in America.
Posted by: ed | March 16, 2007 at 01:51 PM
If your listening to the Waxman hearings, it doesn't appear Rove will be able to keep his security clearance much longer...
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Ummm... Why? Did he ever know her job was classified before he mentioned that she sent Joe on the trip? Which, by the way, he thought George Tenant was going to state publicly at a press conference that afternoon. Yep, that's pretty damning evidence there.
Posted by: Ranger | March 16, 2007 at 01:51 PM
Someone better tell Andrea Mitchell about these latest polls. LOL
Posted by: shaman ∞ | March 16, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Plame's testimony and Pincus' article are both quite "nuanced," diligently confusing the true story by using words in changing senses, conflating her early career with her later career, etc.
For example, Pincus says that Plame "was covert." Fine. Those who have done the research presume that she was covert in her earlier career. But no one who is "covert" in the legal sense works out of a US Government establishment. Once she returned to the US and worked out of Langley, she ceased being covert in the legal sense--and that was more than five years ago. Occasional travel abroad--using "light cover"--to gather information is not the same thing. Truly covert agents in the legal sense are recruiting and handling penetration agents in foreign countries. Our elected representatives were too stupid or dishonest to ask her about such matters. Otherwise they might have had to go into non-public session, which would have defeated Waxman's obvious purpose in having her testify.
Interesting that Pincus thinks that US citizens who are arrested abroad are "on their own." Where did he get the notion that US passports are meaningless, and that diplomats at US Embassies and Consulates take no interest in the affairs of US citizens?
Posted by: azaghal | March 16, 2007 at 01:54 PM
The hearing in a very dramatic way are asking all the questions the White House has tried to avoid.
no one pays much attention to waxman or his hearings, notwithstanding all the 'drama'.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 02:16 PM
No one is paying attention? Sorry, to tell you this but it's all over the media. It's front page news on every major news website, television, and smaller networks.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 02:29 PM
"She tstified under oath that she indeed was a covert officer and that she traveled abroad during past five years to perform work in that capacity."
If Plame has at some time been covert,she will have been trained to lie,under interrogation,even under torture.But look at this objectively,which Democrat will call her on a lie,what part of the MSM will make it public,who wrote the script?
This hearing can be evaluated by who is not there,the Trial of Joan of Arc,it isn't.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 16, 2007 at 02:30 PM
One last point, Valerie is a person who's testimony the coutry wanted to hear from. She got her day. Good for her.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Hmmm.
Valerie is a person who's testimony the coutry wanted to hear from.
Really? Why?
Posted by: ed | March 16, 2007 at 02:35 PM
This hearing is more in the nature of a Fanzine than an inquiry,"Tell us Madonna,why is your latest record so wonderful".No wonder Fitzgerald wouldn't turn up.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 16, 2007 at 02:50 PM
One last point, Valerie is a person who's testimony the coutry wanted to hear from. She got her day. Good for her.
I would have preferred a lie detector be employed, a liar under oath is of limited utility.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 02:52 PM
Why did the coutry want to hear from her? Becuase she was able to give live testimony regarding lies told about her. Yes, it was compelling. And yes, Libby was convicted over lies he told about her.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 02:55 PM
The only one convicted of lying is Libby. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, and Guilty. Good luck waiting for a Bush pardon, which is not certain. Yes, he does get an appeal, but his chances are slim to nil.
Posted by: sferris | March 16, 2007 at 02:57 PM
"Good luck waiting for a Bush pardon, which is not certain."
take it to the bank, Libby will not spend one day in prison.
Posted by: arcanorum | March 16, 2007 at 03:04 PM
Hmmm.
Why did the coutry want to hear from her? Becuase she was able to give live testimony regarding lies told about her. Yes, it was compelling. And yes, Libby was convicted over lies he told about her.
What lies?
Plame herself doesn't actually know what her legal status was. Which is frankly idiotic since ANYBODY who actually is covert must know that he/she is covert since it requires the person to actually ... you know ... ACT covert.
And the nonsense about Plame not helping her husband get sent to Niger. What a crock.
Here's a clue for you; The only questions people really have are for her husband not for her. Why? Because she has no relevance to anything.
Posted by: ed | March 16, 2007 at 03:47 PM