Pardon Me....

From the Post Page Six:

March 21, 2007 -- [We hear...] THAT Vice President Dick Cheney spoke to Hudson Institute members Monday at the Union League Club. Asked about a possible pardon for Scooter Libby, he smiled and said, "You can imagine how I feel about that." Libby himself was seated in the front row.

Hat tip to Tonto.

Comments

[ErnestAbe]

Yes, how funny this joking about pardoning someone who has been convicted of obstructing and investigation into wrong doing in the White House. Yuck. Yuck. Reminds me of the good old days of Iran-Contra. Such proud examples of good government to teach the children.

[Good Lt]

Because Clinton taught them so much.

[maryrose]

EarnestAbe:
Perhaps you'll recall Clinton's reaction to Sandy Burgler's lifting of classified documents from the Archives... I believe he said"Oh that absent minded Sandy{chuckle chuckle} he's always doing things like that." The reason we don't take this pardon talk seriously is :
1. Val didn't even know she was covert and according to the statute she wasn't
2. Libby didn't lie or do anything wrong.
3. Joe Wilson is a pronounced "blowhard" per the Washington Post
4. No harm no foul and original leakers Ari and Armitage-not indicted.
5. Val and Joe cashing in on Book, speaking engagements and of course a movie deal which will spin their way but will be full of lies.

[Nick Kasoff]

Right, ErnestAbe. Convicted of obstructing an investigation which had concluded, long before he was even charged, that there was nothing to investigate. I'd think a US Attorney would be able to find something better to do than this.

In a way, a pardon would be a bad thing, because I'd rather see Libby beat the rap on appeal. But that comes at a great cost, which I wouldn't demand that anyone bear.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

[Rick Ballard]

Yeah. Let Speaker StarKist set an example for the children ('cept for the ones cleanin' tuna for less than minimum wage). Or better, let Abscam Jack Murth be an example for the kids, or have Dingy Harry explain the benefits of having zoning changes made in order to increase investment value.

Follow up with a lecture by 'Cold Cash' Jeffereson on the importance of using your office to delay prosecution of a blatant bribery charge. Sen. Cheesey Chucky can train the kids on how to violate the Privacy Act. Sec. Espy can explain how a person can be convicted for giving a bribe while the person receiving the bribe can skip down the steps of the courthouse. Sen. Clinton can explain the absolute importance of the phrase "I don't recall" and Bubba can tell the kids that "Real Democratic Presidents don't give pardons - they sell them."

ALgore can then do a wrap up concerning what "no controlling legal authority means" (hint - it means you're a Democrat) and Sen. Kerry will close with a benediction involving his seared Magic Hat.

But for God's sake, never let children hear a Republican be dismissive of a sham.

[Semanticleo]

"never let children hear a Republican be dismissive of a sham."

So goes the (arbitrary) Rule of Law.

[ErnestAbe]

(1) I don't recall Clinton pardoning someone in a self-serving way, as a reward for obstructing justice to cover-up the administration's own misdeeds, as a Libby pardon would be, and as the Bush41 pardons of Iran-Contra was.

(2) I don't recall any lefties or Democrats yucking it up when Clinton pardoned Mark Rich. It was not a proud moment for any Democrats, although it may have been a proud moment for Rich's lawyer (wasn't he a guy by the name of Scooter?).

[Enlightened]

And then let's add in the Blogger Brigade of the left - how about we start with Jane Hamsher and how to properly use "blackface".

Nuance folks. It's all for the Children.

[ErnestAbe]

Right, ErnestAbe. Convicted of obstructing an investigation which had concluded, long before he was even charged, that there was nothing to investigate.

Huh? He lied to the FBI began before Fitz got involved. Do you really think this is a good defense? This line of reasoning didn't stand up too well in our justice system.

[Rick Ballard]

Perhaps Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell could be engaged to teach kids to play "Rollover, rollover, help Hilbilly get over".

He's out of prison now I think, so he should be available.

[Judicious]

"2. Libby didn't lie or do anything wrong."

Yeah if we set aside the conviction that was delivered in a verdict by a jury of his peers, then I suppose that's true.

Unfortunately the rule of law is rather inconveniently standing in the way of this assesment.

[Enlightened]

He lied to the FBI - and how exactly did that obstruct their investigation? Since they conveniently lost their notes?

Oh wait I know - FBI good on Libby case, bad on NSA case.

You guys are a riot.

[Rosley]

Don't forget that Clinton also pardoned a couple of felons who "loaned" his Rodahm brothers-in-law money. (And of course his dopehead brother Roger Clinton for his drug conviction). But, hey, if you can't pardon your relatives who can you pardon?

And Bubba pardoned some Puerto Rican terrorists convicted of murder so he could suck up to NY Puerto Ricans before Hillary's first senate run.

[Gary Maxwell]

I don't recall Clinton pardoning someone in a self-serving way

True enough, unless Rodham's brother and all the fees he took for pardons counts. But he is a democrat so of course it doesn't.

And was there another leg to the Marc Rich transaction, with his former wife making a big donation to Clinton right before the pardon or is my memory addled by time on things I hope someday to complete forget?

[malcontent]

I'll shoot Libby on the courthouse steps if he's pardoned.

Fucking traitors.

[Appalled Moderate]

Regulars --

Um, since Fitz probably still hopes he can get Libby to turn the Veep in on some charge (such as asking Libby to lie in the first place), Cheney's opinion on a pardon for Libby is surely not hard to figure out.

Abe--

Clinton pardoned his brother, his donors, his allies who ran afoul of Ken Starr. If that's not self-serving...

[clarice feldman]

malcontent, this is the second threat to life you've made in so many days. Get into an anger management class pronto. You are a seriously troubled person if you cannot contain these thoughts on a blog.

[malcontent]

I had actually hoped someone would shoot Bush way back in 2000, so you can imagine how pissed I am now.

[ErnestAbe]

Clinton pardoned his brother, his donors, his allies who ran afoul of Ken Starr. If that's not self-serving...

But not anyone who obstructed justice WRT an investigation into something that Clinton was a party to (like the Libby conviction), and not anyone who was involved in an activity that the administration was responsible for (like the Arms for Hostages fiasco and the Iran-Contra secret war that purposely defied the will of Congress and the law). Big difference.

[ErnestAbe]

Clinton pardoned his brother, his donors, his allies who ran afoul of Ken Starr. If that's not self-serving...

And I don't recall many Dems and lefties going around advocating such pardons and yucking it up about them.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Tom needs to report malcontent. These threats of his are unacceptable.

[malcontent]

Where's the threat, Sara? So now I can't even wish someone would shoot someone?

Who are you, the thought police?

[ErnestAbe]

malcontent, I'm not a lawyer, but I think its probably a good idea to avoid making such comments about the president if you want to avoid intimate contact with law enforcement.

[Enlightened]

Do not respond to the self flagellating troll....

As for Libby - He won't need a pardon once they find those missing FBI notes. Someone in the DOJ or the DOD or the FBI or the CIA or the PTA will be leaking them - bank on it.

[Judicious]

Malcontent I was working at an apartment complex many many years ago when the Secret service rushed in to question a resident with mental problems who had written letters that were less threatening then what you posted. You are definitely in dangerous waters with your postings, and you would be wise to avoid making any further such statements.

Also your viewpoint in general is reprehensible. Whatever you think of the current crop of politicians and aides, murder and violence is not an acceptable solution, by you or anyone else. Even if we disagree with the policies, we all lose if that becomes the reposne to our disagreements.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

There is a vast difference between "hoping" something (a thought) and stating an absolute intention with the words "I'll shoot."

[sbw]

As blog admin, TM can respond accordingly. For the rest of us, shunning Mal is the response within our power.

[lurker]

Spartacvs posted a partial quote that Tony Snow made back in 1998. I see that a full quote is available at Wizbang:

Tony Snow column from 1998:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time."

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.''

Of course we want no part of a president cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade that one thing he was sworn to uphold the rule of law. And Clinton was clearly guilty of this.

Fortunately, Bush is innocent of this.

[MayBee]

(1) I don't recall Clinton pardoning someone in a self-serving way, as a reward for obstructing justice to cover-up the administration's own misdeeds, as a Libby pardon would be, and as the Bush41 pardons of Iran-Contra was.

He pardoned Susan MacDougal.
I'm not sure if I remember anyone "yukking it up" over her pardon, but she was certainly considered quite heroic in some circles.

[Pofarmer]

This line of reasoning didn't stand up too well in our justice system.

We don't have a justice system. We have a legal process system. Justice has nothin to do with it. I agree with Rick Ballard wholeheartedly on that.

[Pofarmer]

And, as far as "Yucking it up". There wasn't a whole lot of blogging going on in the 90's.

[Deagle]

"We don't have a justice system. We have a legal process system. Justice has nothing to do with it."

On the button! I have long since lost my naive regard for the law and "justice" and it continue to degrade (especially federal).

And not to omit the wonderful tax collectors that our local law enforcement has become...

[richard mcenroe]

Rick Ballard - is Abscam Jack Murtha the same guy as Koreagate Jack Murtha...?

[Pofarmer]

And not to omit the wonderful tax collectors that our local law enforcement has become...

It's not a huge wonder why they want "primary enforcement" for seat belt violations, is it.

[Rick Ballard]

He was an unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam - I believe he traded testimony for a pass. Koreagate? I don't know about that one and Murtha - there were a ton of Congresscritters involved - kinda like the check kiting scandal that Barbara Boxer was involved in.

[Syl]

Judicious

Yeah if we set aside the conviction that was delivered in a verdict by a jury of his peers, then I suppose that's true.

LOL

I doubt a jury of Libby's peers would have found Cooper credible. And the fact a former WaPo journalist on the jury wasn't appalled by Cooper's sourcing methods tells us all we need to know.

[Syl]

Ernest

He lied to the FBI began before Fitz got involved.

And the FBI lied about what Russert told them before Fitz got involved.

You figure it out.

[clarice feldman]

The FBI also lied about what Libby told them--unless you think "I don't recollect" is synonymous with "adamantly denied" .

[SunnyDay]

OMG I can't believe you all are arguing this again with these trolls. We just got through. What is the point?

Over and over and over. Same thing. over and over. pffffffffffft.

[Deagle]

SunnyDay,

Yes, it does get tedious doesn't it? Oh well, every time I hit refresh, it does reflect new responses...and like a gnome, I check them out...heh.

[EH]

what is the word for adapting your ethics based on what other people have done? when people say "yeah? well what about x?" i can't figure out what you're implying, that the law should not be enforced in that case, or that it should.

[Deag;e]

Damn...EH. You should have guessed by now! If your a Democrat, your innocent, if a Republican, guilty... What more do your expect?

Unfortunately, that is the reasoning applied today. If it was based on justice alone, it would be much different. Law and Order had flown the coop - so to speak. It's all about political power and who is in charge.

[Syl]

EH

what is the word for adapting your ethics based on what other people have done? when people say "yeah? well what about x?"

Look, when x is the cause of y, the complaints are justified.

Before Fitz was appointed, the FBI had lied about what Libby actually said, and had lied about what Russert actually said and furthermore had lost the notes of what Russert actually said when interviewed.

It was the FBI's reports, based on false information, that got Fitz interested in going after Libby.

Now do you understand our complaints about x?

Probably not because, well, Libby worked for Cheney.

::eye roll::

[Deagle]

syl,

Yep, what I meant to say...without going into details. heh..

[eric]

Now do you understand our complaints about x?

Probably not because, well, Libby worked for Cheney.

::eye roll::

This is exactly what I'm asking about. I said nothing about how I feel about Libby, Cheney, Tim Russert or anybody. I simply asked a question.

So okay, it's bad that the FBI lied about what Libby said. Is it bad that Libby lied about what Libby said, too? Is lying bad, or is it okay if the liar represents your own interests? That's the question, the question of intellectual honesty and ethics.

I see many people typing "well blah blah did x, so..." ...but only as an assertion pointed at their opponent, never at themselves. Find if you can the people saying that both are bad, because I can't find them.

Many people in this thread (not naming names, you can find them if you read), write as though the actions of their enemies justifies their own (or others') bad behavior. Call me a lefty if it makes you feel better, but Nietzsche called this "ressentiment," and defined it as a ruling principle of the lowest sort.

[Deagle]

Mercy... Eric, you would also think about justice in your statement...but alas, not so.

Yes, you are generally right, but fail to take an important angle in your post...was this right or wrong? Please take into consideration the actions of the FBI and others when you respond (Justice is not just a word to most of us).

If you can actually forgive the actions of the federal officials in this trial you are a better man than I am...

[ErnestAbe]

He pardoned Susan MacDougal.
I'm not sure if I remember anyone "yukking it up" over her pardon, but she was certainly considered quite heroic in some circles.

Posted by: MayBee | March 21, 2007 at 03:59 PM

Good point, MayBee. I might feel differently about a pardon for Scooter, AFTER he serves as much time in the slammer as Susan MacDougal did (18 months, including a week in solitary confinement).

Clinton also pardoned his brother Roger, AFTER Roger served a year in prison.

For all the many people campaigning for a Libby Pardon (I don't recall any campaigns for Clinton pardoning anyone), are you advocating that Libby should serve time prior to a pardon?

[PMII]

This entire investigation has a witch hunt - pure and simple. It was a waste of time & money. It what the left does best!

[Dale in Atlanta]

I think you'd all enjoy this!

I know it's not good "form" to post a whole article, but I'm doing it anyhow, by the way!

Washington Post
Was She Covert?

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 22, 2007; A21

Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard on
television Friday as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman,
said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Michael Hayden.
That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA
operative when her identity was revealed.

As House intelligence committee chairman when Republicans controlled
Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA
but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman, 67, the 17-term congressman
from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who
would misrepresent the director of central intelligence. Waxman was
correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra
yesterday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of
the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The former CIA employee's status is critical to the attempted political
rehabilitation of former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The
Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush's principal
adviser. The purpose of last week's hearing was to blame Rove for "outing"
Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance.

Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out
of Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last
week's hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs.
Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted
her career in intelligence.

Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had
not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an
administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert
if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about
comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be
given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her
CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?

Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert
and cited Hayden as proof. Hayden's endorsement of Waxman's statement
astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the
agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to
Democrats.

These issues were not explored by the only two Republicans who showed up at
last week's hearing. Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking
Republican and former chairman, is a skilled legislator but is not prone to
roughhouse with Waxman. Unwilling to challenge Plame's covert status, Davis
blamed the CIA instead of the White House for her alleged exposure. The
other Republican present -- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from
metro Atlanta -- seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. "If I seem a
little nervous," he began, "I've never questioned a spy before."

Davis had e-mailed the committee's other Republicans requesting their
presence. Where were they? I asked Rep. Christopher Shays, who during nine
previous terms in Congress had proved a tenacious questioner at hearings.
"We felt the committee is so biased," he replied, "we would do better to
just stay away."

That decision left the field to such partisan Democrats as Rep. Chris Van
Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Rep.
Diane Watson, Waxman's fellow Californian, mimicked the chairman's
inquisitorial style. She repeatedly interrupted lawyer Victoria Toensing,
the lone rebuttal witness granted the Republicans by Waxman.

Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a
Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for
the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning
that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.

Waxman relied on his support from Hayden. When Hayden's role was pointed out
to one of the president's most important aides, there was no response. The
White House from the start has treated the Plame leak as a criminal case not
to be commented on. The Democrats still consider it a political blunderbuss,
aimed at Karl Rove and his boss.

? 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Rosley]

Roger Clinton served a year in prison for dealing cocaine.

[Deagle]

Darn Dale...that is tough to read...

[hit and run]

Thanks Dale.

One comment...

I asked Rep. Christopher Shays, who during nine previous terms in Congress had proved a tenacious questioner at hearings. "We felt the committee is so biased," he replied, "we would do better to just stay away."

...

The White House from the start has treated the Plame leak as a criminal case not to be commented on. The Democrats still consider it a political blunderbuss, aimed at Karl Rove and his boss

I do not disagree with Shays' that the committee is that biased.

BUT

I can only half believe that's why he and others stayed away.

THEY still believe that to jump in the middle of this mess is to become themselves a target of the Dems' use of Plame as blunderbuss. They want to keep their distance and not get caught in the fire aimed at the WH.

But what the hell. Nice word, blunderbuss. The Dems are using Plame as the first definition.......while the Repubs, if they had a pair could use Joe Wilson as the second definition...

blun·der·buss
Pronunciation[blun-der-buhs]
-noun
1. a short musket of wide bore with expanded muzzle to scatter shot, bullets, or slugs at close range.

2. an insensitive, blundering person.

SAVE ME OBAMA! I am cynical!!!!

[Pofarmer]

Is it bad that Libby lied about what Libby said, too?

Can you prove he did from what was presented at the "trial"?

[Cecil Turner]

Yeah, and if we're looking for a reasonable parallel to Libby's "perjury," Bill Clinton is the obvious one. Kinda funny to watch Dem partisans argue Libby couldn't have forgotten unimportant bits of conversations three months on; but Bill coulda forgot a little afternoon delight in the Oval Office. And I'd support Libby spending exactly as much time in jail as he did.

Is it bad that Libby lied about what Libby said, too?

I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (or unreasonable one, for that matter) that Clinton lied under oath. Libby's "lies" look a lot like source misattribution.

[Deagle]

Like your new signature "SAVE ME OBAMA! I am cynical!!!!"

A bit better than your previous one...heh.

[MayBee]

Earnest Abe &Co Good point, MayBee. I might feel differently about a pardon for Scooter, AFTER he serves as much time in the slammer as Susan MacDougal did (18 months, including a week in solitary confinement).

But Scooter Libby cooperated much more than Susan MacDougal did. All she had to do to get herself out of prison was talk, like Libby did.
I'm guessing you would never feel differently about a pardon for Libby.

[hit and run]

The Cynicist's Prayer:

Obama, I know that I am a cynicist. I know that I deserve the consequences of my cynicism. However, I am trusting in your Audacity to save me. I invite you to become the ruler of my life, your Hope to reign in my heart from this day forward. I trust in you and you alone as my personal Savior. Thank you Obama, for saving me and forgiving me! Amen!

[ed.--Obama kick? Wassup with that?]
When life hands you lemons....

[Dale in Atlanta]

Deagle: yeah, sorry about that; don't know why the format got screwed up, it was fine when I copied/pasted.

I'm just furious that the Rep's on the committee just basically admitted that they "punted" on this whole issue, even though they also know it's obvious that Hayden is now a Democratic pawn, and that Plame lied, etc.

I don't understand this Administration, and the Republicans, just giving into these lying, backstabbing, traitorous Democrats!

Makes me nuts...

[Steve]

Remember this WaPo article when someone asks why didn't the President do this or why didn't he do that when he had a Republican majority? It's because he didn't need a party majority. He needed a majority of serious people.

[Jane]

This is at Hugh Hewitt:

HH: All right. Let’s get back to your favorite couple, power couple, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. I assume that you watched with rapt attention the Plame testimony?

CH: Couldn’t tear myself away.

HH: And what did you think of it?

CH: Well, I thought that it was really a terrible indictment of Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, because if anything she said was true, he’s the stupidest prosecutor in the history of the world…

HH: Yes.

CH: …which I don’t think her supporters generally believe. But in other words, if she says that she was a major undercover, cloak and dagger agent, then it’s really bizarre that he found that there had been no breach of the legislation that protects the identity of such agents. And he didn’t find that there’d been any breach of that already, I think, by the way, very restrictive and repressive act. So that’s that.

HH: Now what about…

CH: As to who sent her…did you notice there was quite a funny…sent him, rather, her lovely husband. Did you see a rather funny correction in the New York Times the other day?

HH: No, I didn’t.

CH: It was on the op-ed page an editorialist correction. They had said he’d been sent to Niger by the State Department, and the correction was, after all this time, only last week, they corrected, he was sent there by the CIA. Yes, we always knew that. That’s what the original allegation was, and they might as well have added, as was found by the Senate committee, that the person in the CIA who wanted to send him was his wife.

HH: Yup, although she denied that.

CH: So it was a slam dunk.

HH: She denied that, did she not?

CH: Yeah, well, we have the letter that she sent recommending him. I haven’t got it in front of me, but it’s very easy to find.

HH: Right.

CH: And recommended him particularly, I might add, on the grounds that he was great friends with the Minister of Mines of Niger, the very man, in other words, who he would have been, if he had been doing an investigation, which he wasn’t, having to investigate. So he gets sent there on the grounds that he’s friends of the person who he’s supposed to be suspecting. It’s extraordinary.

[Jane]

CH is Christopher Hitchens

[jerry]

Novak says today:

"Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert and cited Hayden as proof. Hayden's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats."

So now Hayden is a traitor under suspicion.

Maybe it's Toensing's (of the beautiful mind) definition of "covert" that is wrong, and Novak is following her bad advice - just like the WH.

While she pushes her personal interpretation of the IIPA, the Agencies involved likely take a different position (where Plame is protected) because the law is badly written and doesn't easliy apply to reality.

She's another one of those non-reality based Republicans, Toensing the Almighty IIPA Authority, and the WH drank her Kool-Aid.

[Pofarmer]

While she pushes her personal interpretation of the IIPA

Once agian, she wrote the damned thing. I've seen nothing that says her "personal interpretation" doesn't hold up. Even Plame admitted she wasn't covert under the statute in her testimony.

Was she gonna be covert once she got moved over to State?

[cathyf]

Arguing about the definition of "covert" with respect to the IIPA, CIA operational practice, or the accounting category of which account Plame was embezzling out of is silly. Fitzgerald is still claiming that Plame's employment by the CIA was "classified." We know the information that appeared in Novak's column came from Richard Armitage, who got it by reading it in the INR report. We know that the person who put it in the INR report got it from the INR staffer who was at the meeting on Feb 19, 2002 where Valerie Plame identified herself as a "CIA managerial type" and identified Joe Wilson as her husband, as a former ambassador, and as the person that the CIA wanted sent to Niger to check out yellowcake intel. We know that Valerie Plame, an agent of the US Government, did not affirmatively protect her employment status at that meeting. Therefore, we know, because of the definition of classified as established in Executive Order 13292, that the information that appeared in Novak's column was not classified. Because the information that appeared in Novak's column, when traced back through the chain of custody to its source, was unclassified on Feb 19, 2002.

The executive order puts the burden upon the government to designate what information is classified and holds harmless any employee who treats information as unclassified if the government never communicated that the information was other than unclassified. When classified information is divulged (in error or otherwise) without its classification designation, the executive order establishes procedures for getting it back under cover, contingent upon whether it is possible. (Information not yet disseminated widely and/or noticed can often be collected up, and recipients notified of its status.) There was a 15-month gap between Valerie Plame disclosing her status to the INR meeting-goer and the INR meeting-goer passing it on in the report that Armitage read and passed on to Woodward, Novak and maybe others. There is no sign that Valerie Plame, the CIA, or any US government employee made any attempt at all to undo the release of "classified" information to the INR staffer at the Feb 19, 2002 meeting. So, according to the laws and regulations of the US government, we must conclude that her employment status was not classified after Feb 19, 2002. Clearly Plame's employment status was classified earlier, and the exact point at which it became unclassified is unclear. But we can conclude with certainty that it was before Feb 20, 2002.

Which Libby's lawyers were not allowed to even argue in Judge Reggie "La-la-la I Can't Hear You" Walton's court.

[hit and run]

cathyf, can you please, please say that a little more clearly?

Wait, don't answer. Let me.

NO, it is impossible to make that any clearer.

If you can make hit and run understand it, then anyone who does not is doing so willfully and is doing the same La-la-la I can't hear you as Walton's court.

[Pofarmer]

Wow, cathyf, just Wow.

[eric]

Can you prove he did from what was presented at the "trial"?

I don't have to. That much was up to Fitzgerald to prove and for Ted Wells (et al) to refute. Apparently this has only worked out one way so far. If you are going to rebuke Judge Walton for a perceived bias that goes against your preferences or perception of the information available, then it's only fair that you also criticize judges who rule in ways that align with your values in the shadow of their own biases. Anything else would seem to be the very definition of hypocrisy. You could argue that there are judges who are able to suppress all bias, but is that a reasonable assertion? If we're going to accept a certain amount of bias being inevitable in judges, the only thing left is acceptance of the rule of law.

I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (or unreasonable one, for that matter) that Clinton lied under oath. Libby's "lies" look a lot like source misattribution.

What about the parts that *don't* look anything like misattribution? Are there any of those? Of course, you don't even mention that while both of them were tried for their actions in front of grand juries, only one of them were convicted. Furthermore, it would again make sense to mention something about the rule of law.