Powered by TypePad

« Was Valerie Plame Covert? Once More, with Feeling | Main | Plame To Sue CIA - The Irony And The (Near) Ectasy »

May 31, 2007

Comments

lurker9876

"There is no rivalry. You can call me, or UT, whatever you like. It is immaterial to either of us. I will rest comfortably on our record of Academic and Sports superiority over Tamu.

People in Austin don't sit around discussing Tamu, or dissing it, or making up special names for it. We don't even care about you at all. Maybe if you could field a quality football team, people would care a little more. As it is, Oklahoma is our rival now. But that's neither here nor there."

LOL, but ah no difference between the quality of sports and academics. There you go...name-calling TAMU as inferior because t.u.'s sport and academics being superior over TAMU. Neither do we diss t.u.

"Your arguments all rest on the assumption that there was 'no underlying crime.'"

And SUSPECTED crime, which there are none. You haven't been able to answer the question of underlying or SUSPECTED crime. First define this before determining motive, intent, and opportunity.

"as the side of the argument which I have championed has been borne out in a court of law."

Actually, your championship is being borned out of a court of fitzlaw. You haven't been able to defend anything coming out of a court of US law.

" think this is a fine opinion that you hold, but it is an assertion, not a fact. The VP did not have the right to break the law in order to defend his office. There is some evidence that this is what they did, though not necessarily enough to convict someone on. There isn't much evidence that they didn't do this, as her name was released and the WH was talking to a bunch of people about it, all at the same time... it's plausible deniability that is keeping them out of the pokey, but little more."

Agree that the VP having no right to break the law in order to defend his office. But I disagree that there is some evidence that this is what they broke any law. It's the CIA that failed to train the WH employees how to handle CIA classified data and failed to present them the annual list of CIA classified employees to the US president by law.

And I don't see a problem with the WH talking to a bunch of people about it, all at the same time to find out what was going on, especially when the WH was being attacked by Joe Wilson, VIPsers, and mainstream media." I have not seen them deny aything because they did not do anyting to break the law to defend themselves against the attacks by Joe Wilson, VIPsers, and mainstream media. Fitz also found nothing to charge them for breaking any laws to defend themselves.

lurker9876

Walter, if Fitz knew up front that he was going after process crimes, did the WH know that this was Fitz's intent up front? Did Libby know this as well?

Jane

This does not equal proof that the WH did not participate in the outing of her name.

Seems to me since you made the allegation that burden is on you.

cathyf

OT:

My recollection of the timing of the various disclosures is very imperfect, and if the facts are as you suggest, then the decision to continue the investigation would be very troubling.
Well, in fact that is why I used the phrase "knew or should have known." I think that it was a political witch hunt from Day One, and that the FBI was completely uninterested in any "leaks" that came from anywhere but the White House.

So I believe that, in fact, they did not trace back the chain of custody of information beyond the INR memo, and so they had no clue about the Feb 19, 2002 meeting until the SSCI report.

Which goes back to my argument that there was no obstruction because there was nothing to obstruct. The facts as they existed in October 2003 only allowed two outcomes. If there had been a leak investigation with even the most minimal of diligence, then the investigation would have discovered that the information "leaked" was unclassified. If there was no leak investigation, then (simple tautology) there was no leak investigation to obstruct. (I suppose you could claim that the FBI was investigating something else, but, a) they haven't claimed that, b) no one tasked them to do so, and c) there is no obvious thing that they would have had probable cause to investigate.)

JM Hanes

KISS

Fitzgerald knew he couldn't charge a violation of IIPA, and tried to figure out how to charge a violation of the Espionage Act, but couldn't. He took his best shot at a guilty verdict, blaming Libby for his own failure to find any evidence of any other crime, so that he could pretend, as he does in his sentencing docs, that he got a conviction for IIPA & Espionage offenses.

It seems both astonishing and emblematic that Fitzgerald would wrap things up with a quote from Judge Tatel, of all people, saying that "prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak." Now that's sock puppetry where it counts!

Cycloptichorn

LOL, but ah no difference between the quality of sports and academics. There you go...name-calling TAMU as inferior because t.u.'s sport and academics being superior over TAMU. Neither do we diss t.u.

The entire use of the 't.u.' moniker is evidence of an inferiority complex. We don't make up special names for TamU, because there's no reason to do so; it gains us nothing and doesn't change the reality of the situation. But if it makes you feel good inside to insult the school, then I encourage you to continue doing so.

None of this is material to the case at hand. Back on topic:

I have not seen them deny aything because they did not do anyting to break the law to defend themselves against the attacks by Joe Wilson, VIPsers, and mainstream media. Fitz also found nothing to charge them for breaking any laws to defend themselves.

This is a circular argument.

Jane,

This does not equal proof that the WH did not participate in the outing of her name.

Seems to me since you made the allegation that burden is on you.

Perhaps if we were in a court of law, it would. As it is, there are allegations by reporters that this is exactly what happened; the WH either gave the name to them or confirmed her employment to them, neither of which would be legal, iirc.

anduril

Why Fred Thompson

The Connecticut Republicans, down to one seat in Congress after 2006 election losses, cheered when Thompson told them: "I think the biggest problem we have today is what I believe is the disconnect between Washington, D.C., and the people of the United States. People are looking around at the pork barrel spending and the petty politics, the backbiting. The fighting over all things, large or small, is creating a cynicism among our people." That cynicism, Thompson contends, mandates a different kind of campaign for 2008.

Thompson implied at Stamford that Republicans, along with Democrats, are responsible for making Americans cynical. While so far not spelling this out publicly, he deplores ethical abuses, profligate spending and incompetent management of the Iraq war. He becomes incandescent when considering abysmal CIA and Justice Department performance under the Bush administration. He is enraged by Justice's actions in decisions leading to Scooter Libby's prison sentence.

lurker9876

Cyclo-teasipper,

Allegations by reporters were discredited during the Libby trial. Their words cannot be fully trusted as much as Libby's words as much as ours either.

Fitz did not prove that the WH gave the name to them or confirmed her employement to them either. The defense team showed that it was Armitage, Harlow, Joe Wilson, and previous sources that confirmed her employment. Not WH.

Why would the WH have to deny something that they did not do?

JM Hanes

Cycloptic & lurker: Get a room guys!

Cycloptichorn

Sorry JM.

Allegations by reporters were discredited during the Libby trial.

I think what you meant to say is, the defense attempted to discredit the reporters during the trial. They failed to do so, thus, the conviction of Libby.

It is inaccurate to say that they were discredited, as by any reasonable measurement, they were not discredited.

Jane

Perhaps if we were in a court of law, it would.

WEll that used to be true - but if the kind of justice you are advocating takes hold it never will be again. You should probably rejoice before you fully understand the consequences, because you won't be happy then.

Specter

What I said cyclo is that it is your attitude of “you are all wrong and I am right because I say I am.” That kind of “moral superiority” stance ticks people off, and tends to damage the credibility of the person claiming such. I have spent only 10 minutes on this, but here is what I found:

I think it's mostly because you've invested yourself so heavily, emotionally, in this case, that it would be damaging to your psyche to simply admit that you were WRONG.

Everybody is wrong except cyclo!

Outside the little 20% bubble that most of you seem to reside in, it's a settled matter.

Those here are inside a 20% bubble – cyclo speaks for the majority. Not sure that is true. I suspect if you took a poll of people who actually followed the case, the numbers would be much different.

how hard is it for you people to understand that Libby lied in order to prevent his bosses from being charged with crimes?

Got any proof of your assertion? Real discussion and debate is not based solely on unproven opinion, even if you believe it. Reflects more on your BDS.

this seems to be the only standard that Republicans respect any longer, and not even then when they disagree with the outcome.

Criticizing Repubs, but of course Dimmies never, ever do anything wrong. Go back and look at the Clinton Legacy. Also, refer to poll numbers for the do-nothing 110th.

Just a bunch of sour grapes from the losing team, is what I read. Doesn't change the facts, the narrative, the history that is made. Outside the 20%, there is little doubt about what went on in the WH during this time.

Again, unproven statement. Where is your backup? You make the statement, now prove it. Otherwise it is clearly BDS speaking.

The really funny thing to me, is that the wheels are going to grind up the leaders of the Republican party to a far greater extent than this. Why, I think that when we look back at the history of how the GOP went from having it all, to being back in the wilderness, this event will be little more than a comma.

Somewhat true. Repubs screwed their own chances by sitting on their butts. But, once again, refer to the current polling data of the current Dimmie controlled Congress. Going lower daily.

Generally it is considered to be in poor taste to focus on something as petty as someone's chosen handle, but I can see how it would provide a useful vent for your frustration, given the way events are going these days.

Projecting your own opinion on everybody who disagrees with you. Very honest debate there.

Crust, don't use unfair tactics like requiring facts or logic! You'll hurt her head.

Oh yea – you never said anything derogatory.

A lot worse. Libby didn't just get a few dates mixed up. He invented lies in order to protect people higher in the chain then himself. He very conveniently 'forgot' every single detail that worked against him, and just as conveniently 'remembered' things which didn't happen.

I’ll make this simple. Libby says he did not. Jury says, “well he must have lied somewhere”. Convicted yes – but you certainly have not voir dired the jury to see what they thought was a lie, and why they thought it. Again – Opinion on your part stated as fact.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but they have little validity in the absence of any actual proof - which I doubt you have.

Funny that you bring up the conspiracy thingy. That is what every one of your WH was behind it all arguments. Pure speculation. Conspiracy theory!

His motive was to protect himself and others from being prosecuted for the intentional outing of a CIA agent, in retaliation for Wilson's actions. He had every reason to lie.

Pure BS. Proof? None. Conspiracy theory? Yes. BDS? Obviously.

Justice, and the investigation into who in the WH knew about Plame, what they knew, who they TOLD to do something about it. By which of course we mean Cheney. This is obvious to any observer.

Pure BS. Proof? None. Conspiracy theory? Yes. BDS? Obviously.

I'm sure that would be a fun conversation to have with your cellmate, as your fear would have little to do with the law being practiced as it currently is.

LOL.

He lied about how he learned Plame's name, he lied about his conversations with Cheney about it, he lied about who he spoke to in the media about it, he lied about the timeline of events. Too many lies.

Pure BS. Proof? None. Conspiracy theory? Yes. BDS? Obviously.

He lied for two reasons: 1, to protect himself, and if that couldn't happen, then 2, to protect Cheney. Once again, this is self-evident if you've bothered to study the case at all. Libby's comments that he was 'doing his best to remember' are immaterial to this discussion, as there is no proof that this is actually true. You see, he was lying there as well. Claims that he couldn't have gotten a fair trial in front of a DC jury are the last resort of a failed argument. Really.

Pure BS. Proof? None. Conspiracy theory? Yes. BDS? Obviously.

Libby was lying during his testimony. He was convicted of it just a few months ago. Claims that he was telling the truth when he said 'I'm remembering this to the best of my ability' are not dispositive evidence that he actually was doing so, but could just as easily have been lies.

And you know that Libby was “lying” during his GJ testimony…how? Were you there? Have you ever been questioned, under pressure, without notes, for 8 hours? Bet not.

This is either an assumption or an assertion depending on how you phrase it; but it is non-factual either way, as it relies upon the unproven premise - ESPECIALLY at that time - that Cheney did nothing wrong.

Yet your statement relies on unproven premise also – that Cheney did something. But your attitude is that you are right because – well not based on fact, but because you said it.

The invariable question: 'why didn't Fitz charge Cheney then?' And the logical answer: 'you do understand what Obstruction of Justice means, don't you?'

You would never write as if looking down your nose, right? BTW – not a very logical answer.

I suppose that it is a definite boon to my side of the argument, that no matter what sort of logical twists and turns Libby supporters wish to resort to, he's still guilty and will remain so.

Maybe, maybe not. Appeals, habeus, pardon. He will not remain guilty if pardoned. Appeals could go his way. You don’t know for a fact. But you want us to believe you because you have pronounced it!

Jane, I fully support you saying whatever it is you need to say in order to make yourself feel better about this situation. I'm comfortable knowing that both the facts, and the outcome of the trial, are solidly on my side.

More not looking down your nose. Attitude.

There's nothing left to weaken. No amount of logical argument on your part will change the outcome. I'm sure that sucks for those who believe that Libby is guilty, but it's the way things have turned out.

Maybe, maybe not. Appeals, habeus, pardon. He will not remain guilty if pardoned. Appeals could go his way. You don’t know for a fact. But you want us to believe you because you have pronounced it!

You can't appeal based on logical arguments, but only based upon some failure on Walton's part during the trial. I doubt they will be sucessful with such an appeal.

Ta Da! Cyclops has said it, so it must be so!

The Opportunity to lie came during the long interviews, before which Libby et others had plenty of time to get their stories straight and concoct a tale to make it look as if they were all innocent and those ewil weporters were behind this whole mess.

More pure speculation stated as fact. Troll-like BDS. Got any proof?

The underlying crime was the intentional outing of a covert operative for political retribution against her husband.

Uh….Armitage outed her. Got any proof of your conspiracy theory? BDS indeed.

None of this is all that difficult to figure out...

Exactly. Get a grip!

lurker9876

No, the defense team were successful in discrediting the reporters during the trial. The jury either forgot about it or intentionally forgot about it.

The Libby trial transcripts showed that they were discredited.

Sorry, JM.

Walter
[I]f Fitz knew up front that he was going after process crimes, did the WH know that this was Fitz's intent up front? Did Libby know this as well?

When Libby first told his Russert story to the FBI, he (and most likely the agents) thought the investigation was about IIPA and EA. By the time of his second conversation, the FBI agents probably suspected that Libby had misled them (intentionally or accidentally).

I'd have to go back to the grand jury transcripts to be certain, but Libby probably knew that false statements and perjury charges were in the air about midway through his first appearance. At the latest, he knew before he left his second appearance.

As far as the White House--Hard to say.

Ashcroft knew early on--that's why he recused himself. He probably would have kept a straight IIPA case. (He's kind of hardcore that way.) Given the changing stories that every witness exhibited, I can see him deciding that there was no way for him to avoid the appearance of collusion if he let as many people slide as Fitzgerald did.

Novak said that Bush knew or should have known about Armitage fairly early. And Rove told Bush at some undisclosed point.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Libby and people at the White House knew that process rather than substantive crimes were under investigation when reporters who had written nothing about Plame but who were mentioned in interviews started to get (and fight) subpoenas.

Roger

Espionage Act was meant for prosecuting Plame. The democrats and Plame responded with a law suit when Fitz, a criminal conspiracy investigator(how bad CIA agents are prosecuted), was appointed by his friend.

Fitz was confusing, but he may actually be the leak that got the Mercy Corps(CPA) employee assassinated. I couldn't figure out if she was killed with 'land issues' as a method(known problem) because Chayes did or didn't get along with Plame or it had something to do with Joe's PC past, Ames(PC) and Plame, or something else. Fitz has gone back to Harvard. Chayes is out of Harvard and Shays has interest there. Fitz refused to prosecute Plame and went with her 'you leaked me(Ames) under the five year law that Plame was using as a way of working her investigation into Ames arrest, reminding everyone how Ames was handled.

The five year law and other laws under DIA apply to alot of people. It's possible that Chayes is under these laws living in a NATO war zone and training troops. So, Fitz may have actually been the leak with Chayes and her five year law or DIA informant work and Plame's focus on that law. So, the assassins wanted to make a point; they know who and what was involved. Fitz fits into this theory perfectly and needs to be investigated regarding the assassintion and his focus on the five year law instead of criminal conspiracy prosecution and his realationship to Chayes and Plame. He may have been biased protecting Chayes or someone like her under the five year law and brought this to the Plame investigation, which was Plame's agenda to begin with. Which points to the fact that he missed the basis for investigation, which is what Plame was trying to say, not that she was allowed to investigate, but DoJ would be, if it was needed.

Fitz really fits nicely here and I think that DoJ now has some answers to the assassination of the Mercy Corps(CPA) employee. Fitz needs to explain his relationships with these people because the asassination was planned and pointed toward specific issues with specific reasoning.

The CIA analusts have all moved into NSA/DIA/DoD and the legislation under DIA for 'informants has changed.' Congress requires that information reqests for anyone in the US IC be sent to Congress and the legislation also provides for agents of the US IC, that can be anyone designated as an 'informant' by a US IC employee. The reporting is not fair to the 'informant,' who has a right to have Congress know that he is being used and needs the same protection as the actual emplyee of the US IC. Also, it's standard to leak or out the non US IC employee,usually with bad intent from the US IC agency. Ames, for example, is what Plame is saying. She followed up, outed anything involved that was not US IC and moved up from there. Her pattern is the same as Ames. Alot of people in the IC were asassinated before they were caught. Plame, of course, was never prosecuted.

Enlightened

Other Tom - You said (Way up the thread)

"If a prosecutor knows that a process crime has occurred before he concludes that there was no underlying crime, it's legitimate for him to proceed."

This is where I tend to split from your take -

Armitage was told by Fitzgerald to stay mum about being the leaker. In October 2003.

That act in my opinion exposes Fitzgerald's ulterior motive to pursue Libby even though he knew what occurred.

This is also where I think the obfuscation of "no underlying crime" starts.


Walter

Golly, Specter, it was painful enough to read the first time.

An avatar exhibiting the self-contradictions you exhaustively document is unlikely to change behavior upon confrontation.

Cycloptichorn

Specter, None of what you listed was a personal attack at all. Certainly not when compared to name-calling and insults.

If you have a problem with the tone of my comments, then I suppose you will have to feel some measure of frustration when you read them. I don't know what other recourse I could offer you. You are naturally free to hold whatever opinion you like about either myself or my commentary. It is immaterial to me in either case.

I agree with Walter that the focus changed to process crime at some point in the case. Libby did his job well as the fall guy, and must have known that he wasn't likely to escape unscathed.

Walter

Enlightened,

You know, it would be truly shocking if Fitzgerald told Armitage to be quiet in October. He was supposed to be working full-time in Chicago at that point.

It would finally demonstrate the level of pre-planning and collusion that has long been suspected.

Specter

attitude cyclo....you are not God, nor are you in any way an expert on any of this. Neither am I. But I don't hold out as if my opinions are more valuable than others. You do. Constantly. Unproven statements as fact. Typical BDS. Just admit it.

Specter

Sorry Walter - cyclo asked me to show him where he had said such things. I did not go through all the threads he has been on, but the pattern is the same throughout. That of "I am superior because I say I am". Just gets tiring.

Walter

Enlightened--You know, that comment looks a lot more snarky than I intended. Please read it as if it were bracketed by ::grin::'s. Thanks.

Cycloptichorn

attitude cyclo....you are not God, nor are you in any way an expert on any of this. Neither am I. But I don't hold out as if my opinions are more valuable than others. You do. Constantly. Unproven statements as fact. Typical BDS. Just admit it.

I don't believe that catchphrases such as 'bds' are an accurate description of anyone, let alone myself.

I have been studying this case every since I heard about it 4 years ago; so while I wouldn't call myself an expert, I do have a large amount of knowledge about it.

I find it to be ironic that in a thread chock full of statements to the tune of 'There was no underlying crime! So there should have been no investigation!,' someone would accuse me of asserting things as if they were factual :)

cathyf

As Walter already pointed out, the alleged instruction to Armitage to shut up came from the FBI and (if it really happened) was long before Fitzgerald was appointed. Which is actually more damning -- it's one thing for the FBI to conduct an investigation, get stymied by obstruction, and then when the special prosecutor shows up he prosecutes the obstruction. It's quite another to see that from the earliest days the FBI was refusing to follow the obvious investigative leads that led into the State Dept and CIA and instead investigating only leads that led to the White House.

lurker9876

cylco-teasipper, Specter is right. You had every intent in presenting your argument with your BDS superiority attitude over us. Your posts clearly show that your study of "facts" over 4 years show that you had every intent of studying the "facts" based on the assumption of a WH conspiracy and your liberal bias. It's been very clear up front.

I said that Fitz should not have continued with his investigations as well as fishing someone to charge with the process crimes, when there are no underlying or SUSPECTED crime committed.

Enlightened

Walter - yep, my bad - he was told in December 2003 -

"Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request."

lurker9876

And the FBI ultimately "lost" notes, cathyf.

FBI and CIA both did the wrong things. There should have been no appointment of a SP in the first place.

Specter

Guess what - all the people here have followed the case very closely also. Different opinions than yours.

However your answer to the underlying crime seems to have been that "any observer knows the WH is behind it all." You keep saying that over and over again as if by repeating it over and over, like a mantra, it becomes true. You have been asked several times to provide PROOF, not opinion that such an allegation is true. You have none. But it is obvious you will keep blaming Bush, Cheney, and Rove because of your OPINION. That is BDS, no matter what you choose to call it. Ask any observer.

PeterUK.

"The underlying crime was the intentional outing of a covert operative for political retribution against her husband."

There it is again, the same limp rationale upon which this entire putrefying edifice is built.

windansea

Look, you can't just assert something over and over and over and pretend it is a fact, and what more a fact from which you can draw logical inferences.

Fitz seems to think this is just fine.

Specter

To point this out more clearly to you cyclo, every time you make an unsubstantiated statement, an opinion offered as fact, I will respond with one word. That word will be "Proof?". If you can't back it up, then it is BS brought on by BDS. Simple.

Enlightened

And really, if you look at Armitage's statement - "once he was appointed" ties in with Cathyf indicating the FBI told him to shut up.

Armitage never had to qualify his statement by adding "once he was appointed" - he was told to shut up long before the SC was appointed.

Roger

Ashcroft recused because he is aware of the five year law and how it was used with Ames. Fitz probably was too and should have also recused. If he is aware of the history with Ames and Plame, he should have recused or ordered an investigation of Plame and Ames back to 93.

The loss of 'notes' from FBI would be strange considering 'notes' didn't exist anywhere but maybe DoJ until Plame requested personnel files, which didn't exist.

The crime was comitted under Ftiz's investigation. Conspiracy to commit murder. 'Vanity Fair' was not authorized by CIA.


BDS means?:

http://www.biodetectionsystems.com/

I thought POPs meant population?

Why am I thinking poisons? Maybe the guy they put on the plane should have had some tests done? Biodetectors require bioessays or is that gene codes? Maybe this can go on our passports?

Other Tom

"Do you deny her identity was outed?"

Of course not. What I do deny is that anyone in the White House, or anyone in the administration, or anyone at all, "conspired" to out her, or had any reason to believe that outing her would in any way "punish" her husband. I don't think anyone believes any such thing who is not a child. Her identity was disclosed, not for the purpose of destroying her "cover" (which would in any event have no effect whatsoever on her husband), but for the purpose of refuting the false claim that Joe Wilson had been dispatched by the Vice President to investigate that possible purchase of uranium by Saddam. If you believe there was a conspiracy to punish Wilson by outing Plame, you're out there with Rosie O'Donnell and very, very few others.

Cycloptichorn

It doesn't bother me one bit that people have come to different determinations about the case. I fully expect there to be a wide range of opinion on this matter, as it is a complicated one and one in which there is heavy emotional involvement on both sides.

When it comes to the 'underlying crime' angle, there's a very simple response to this:

At the time when the investigation took place, noone knew if there was an underlying crime or not. That's what the investigation was all about: determining whether or not there was a crime committed in the Plame affair. During the course of this investigation, Libby lied to the investigators about his role in the matter. He was prosecuted for doing so and found guilty.

Fitzgerald has strongly intimated that the lies told by Libby have kept him from going forward with the investigation. Thus the Obstruction of Justice charge. This is not dispositive evidence that there was, in fact, no underlying crime committed; just that Fitz doesn't have the evidence to take the VP or others to court, without Libby admitting that he was lying about several different claims he made.

It is not unreasonable to say that the WH was involved with the outing of the covert agent, at all. There is some question as to whether they were involved directly or merely tangentially. Depending on your political bent, it is undoubtedly true that one explanation will appeal to you more than the other one does. That's cool with me.

What you seem to see as an 'attitude of superiority' is my comfort with the situation. The discussions we are having here are immaterial; a passing diversion to enliven my and your day, nothing more. As I am a supporter of the fact that Libby is guilty and the theory that others in the WH are probably guilty as well, I am pleased with the current situation though not completely so.

I fully understand why others are not pleased with this situation; but I don't understand why people would think that complicated conspiracy theories about how this whole thing was set up have any validity to them at all.

Occam's razor: the simplest solution. The simplest solution is that the WH told people about this w/out realizing how much trouble it was going to make for them. Members of the Exec. branch are the common lynchpin in every segment of this story.

I don't expect anyone here to come around and say 'Gee cyclo, you're right, golly, why didn't I think of it that way?' This sort of disagreement about political cases is typical; I just had a discussion the other day with a fella who claimed that Iran-contra was invented by Ted Kennedy to attack Reagan. I have no doubt he's furiously typing about the innocence of Libby as we speak :)

Looking_For_a_Way_out

Hi Guys!

Lurker, your wishful gasping that Armitage was the original leaker is getting more and more amusing. Armitage leaked to Novak who was the first to publish but that doesn't make Armitage the "original" leaker. Judy Miller testified that Libby leaked the Plame info in June making him the first to provide that information to a journalist. On top of that, Fitzgerald did show how important those conversations with Miller were to Libby. Beyond that, Fitzgerald didn't need to prove either IIPA or Espionage. He did prove that Libby intentionally misled investigations into potential violations of those acts. Blame the jury, blame the judge, blame the witnesses, and blame the prosecutor if it makes you feel better. But whatever you do, don't blame the convicted felon.

"Allegations by reporters were discredited during the Libby trial. Their words cannot be fully trusted as much as Libby's words as much as ours either."

ROTFLMAO

Specter
This is not dispositive evidence that there was, in fact, no underlying crime committed; just that Fitz doesn't have the evidence to take the VP or others to court, without Libby admitting that he was lying about several different claims he made.

PROOF?

It is not unreasonable to say that the WH was involved with the outing of the covert agent, at all.

PROOF?

Oh never mind - you already gave us your proof:

the THEORY that others in the WH are probably guilty as well, I am pleased with the current situation though not completely so.

So much for PROOF.

Cycloptichorn

Specter,

There is no burden on me to disprove an assertion others have made, that assertion being: There was no underlying crime.

The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, not with those who attack that positive claim. The fact that noone has been charged for the crime does not constitute proof that no crime took place. This is elementary logic and argumentation.

It is not unreasonable to say that the WH was involved with the outing of the covert agent, at all.

PROOF?

Members of the WH spoke with reporters and journalists about Plame's identity in June and July of 2003, before it was revealed that she worked for the CIA publicly. There is no doubt that this took place. Whether or not this rose to the level of a crime is in question, but the statement:

" It is not unreasonable to say that the WH was involved with the outing of the covert agent, at all."

Is 100% accurate. There have been reams of evidence produced that show Libby and others did in fact have conversations with reporters and journalists about this, so yes, the WH was involved. The only question is the depth and nature of their involvement.

Please try a little harder. If you're going to attack my statements, I'm cool with that; but make it interesting at least.

Roger

Ashcroft recused because he is aware of the five year law and how it was used with Ames. Fitz probably was too and should have also recused. If he is aware of the history with Ames and Plame, he should have recused or ordered an investigation of Plame and Ames back to 93.

The loss of 'notes' from FBI would be strange considering 'notes' didn't exist anywhere but maybe DoJ until Plame requested personnel files, which didn't exist.

The crime was comitted under Ftiz's investigation. Conspiracy to commit murder. 'Vanity Fair' was not authorized by CIA.


BDS means?:

http://www.biodetectionsystems.com/

I thought POPs meant population?

Why am I thinking poisons? Maybe the guy they put on the plane should have had some tests done? Biodetectors require bioessays or is that gene codes? Maybe this can go on our passports?

lurker9876

"Judy Miller testified that Libby leaked the Plame info in June making him the first to provide that information to a journalist."

ROTFLMAO back to you!!!

No, Judy Miller did not. Prove it to us.

"On top of that, Fitzgerald did show how important those conversations with Miller were to Libby."

So? How important were their conversations regarding an underlying or SUSPECTED crime?
What was Fitz's point?

"Beyond that, Fitzgerald didn't need to prove either IIPA or Espionage."

However, Fitz introduced IIPA and Espionage in his sentencing documents to accuse Libby an accessory before fact. It became important to Fitz. It gave the defense team to challenge Fitz with proof of IIPA and Espionage.

"He did prove that Libby intentionally misled investigations into potential violations of those acts."

ROTFLMAO back to you!!!

Potential violations of IIPA and Espionage Act? How did Fitz prove that Libby intentionally misled investigations into potential violations of IIPA and Espionage?

"Blame the jury, blame the judge, blame the witnesses, and blame the prosecutor if it makes you feel better. But whatever you do, don't blame the convicted felon."

There are valid grounds in the jury's actions, judge's actions, witness' actions, and the prosecutors...for appeals.

Don't worry, the convicted felon will no longer be convicted felon in a few years.

lurker9876

BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Roger

Double post, sorry.

Changing my name to Sober, Elliott.

Cycloptichorn

Lurker,
Potential violations of IIPA and Espionage Act? How did Fitz prove that Libby intentionally misled investigations into potential violations of IIPA and Espionage?

Um, he proved exactly that. Libby was found guilty in a court of law of exactly this. I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing any longer.

Don't worry, the convicted felon will no longer be convicted felon in a few years.

Yeah, I'm sure he's not worried about doing a stint in prison for a few years. After all, he'll get out on a pardon and then everyone can pretend he was never convicted.

Somehow I doubt Libby is sleeping well knowing that.

Specter

Gawwd...not proof cyclo. Remember the context. Reporters called asking questions. What it really comes down to is is "I heard that too." Oh - and BTW simply because Fitz says she was covert doesn't make it so. And Hayden's statement, whatever it was, was reported through a third party - the ever-unbiased Waxman. Not proof. None of us has seen proof. so you have none - making the statement "outing a covert agent" incredibly speculative. While the WH may have spoken to reporters, there is not PROOF of a conspiracy - except in your head.

Add to that the early reporting by Kristof when Joe and Val were both there, and references to her from that point on, and I would say that there is a lot of speculation that she outed herself. Get a grip.

Jeff Dobbs

Armitage leaked to Novak who was the first to publish but that doesn't make Armitage the "original" leaker.

Well, of course not. Armitage telling Woodward made him the "original" leaker.

MikeS

Occam's razor: the simplest solution. The simplest solution is that the WH told people about this w/out realizing how much trouble it was going to make for them.

I think that is a fair and accurate statement. I don't see how you get from there to insisting a crime was committed.

topsecretk9

I guess the CIA no longer wants to be a part of the WIlson's make-believe (Plame suing)

The CIA had also demanded "significant portions" of Wilson's manuscript be "excised or rendered 'fiction'" to protect the secrecy of Wilson's service before 2002, it said...

also

The suit said although the CIA had released Plame's dates of service in an unclassified document, "the CIA now purports to classify or reclassify Ms. Wilson's pre-2002 federal service dates" so it cannot be published in her memoir "Fair Game."...

...Plame's dates of service were contained in an unclassified letter sent to her in 2006 by the agency after she inquired about her retirement benefits...

...CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the letter had been "an administrative error" because it contained classified information and the CIA had taken steps to fix the problem.

Did Plame hand over this letter to Fitzy?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3121855520070531?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&pageNumber=1

Jane

The circles have gotten way too boring. Time for cyclops to go back to Kos where he belongs.

PeterUK.

"It is a fallacy to say that 'there is no underlying crime.' Look, you can't just assert something over and over and over and pretend it is a fact, and what more a fact from which you can draw logical inferences. It is not supportable to say that 'there was no underlying crime, so there was no motive to lie.' It is an assertion on your part, but you treat it as a fact. Poor argumentation".

"Poor argumentation".

You said it.

Cycloptichorn

MikeS,

Unless you think that revealing the identity of a covert agent as an act of political retribution wasn't a crime, I'm not sure how you could come to any other conclusion.

Members of the WH sign documents specifically swearing not to do such things as revealing the identity of agents. They can't confirm it either; saying 'I heard that too' is the same thing as revealing the identity.

If there's a question about whether someone is covert or not, the right thing to do is ask before you talk about it. This was not done.

I am open to discussing other interpretations of this.

Specter:
Reporters called asking questions. What it really comes down to is is "I heard that too."

From Judy Miller's testimony, per the WaPo:

"Deliberately and sometimes defensively offering her account in Libby's perjury trial, Miller told the jury that "a very irritated and angry" Libby told her in a confidential conversation on June 23, 2003, that the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war worked at the CIA. Libby had told investigators he believed he first learned that information from another journalist nearly three weeks later -- the assertion at the core of the charges against him."

Miller didn't call Libby looking for this information, he offered it to Judy, never believing that she would someday give him up for doing so.

And Hayden's statement, whatever it was, was reported through a third party - the ever-unbiased Waxman. Not proof.

You are essentially charging that Waxman is lying about the statement that Hayden made to him. Hayden has not come out and asserted that this is so, therefore it is logically safe to conclude that he was not in fact lying. Unless you can show evidence that Waxman was lying, then yes, it is proof that she was covert. This is corroborated by the CIA documents showing her employment status and service overseas. More than a little evidence here.

Enlightened

"This is corroborated by the CIA documents showing her employment status and service overseas."

Please add the link to these documents -

boris

revealing the identity

Not if the agent reveals it herself. Not if they're staioned stateside. Not if the revealer doesn't know the information is classified, if it even was.

Cycloptichorn

I don't have a link to those documents. But Fitzgerald submitted them in court the other day.

I suppose your next argument is going to be 'well, they don't exist, you don't have any proof that they do exist, nyahh!' This interpretation relies upon the premise that Fitzgerald is lying to Walton, that Walton is falling for it, and that the CIA is playing along and keeping their mouth shut about the fact that the document is a fake.

Do you see what I mean when I say 'tortured logic?' If you have to create a conspiracy to prove that a document is fake, with many discrete players who are not naturally aligned in some way, odds are your argument is faulty.

Of course, you may not have wanted to make that argument at all, in which case please present the one you would like to make.

cathyf
Fitz claimed to have identified very specific untruthful statements by Libby, and in each instance the facts that would have been disclosed by a truthful answer were known, and in fact were proven
OT, could we back way up and go over this? Taking the specific "untruthful" statements:

Libby was surprised by the wife tidbit offered by Russert on July 10 or July 11 because he hadn't paid any attention to it if/when it had been brought up in previous conversations.

Here's where I have the biggest problem with your construction that a truthful answer would have disclosed facts while an untruthful answer would have failed to disclose facts. Completely independent of the actual truth or falseness of Libby's statement about Russert, this actual particular statement, if believed, would have led investigators to believe that if Russert knew on July 10/11, then somebody must have leaked already for it to be possible for the word to get to him. If disbelieved, it would not cause investigators to try to find Russert's ultimate source.

So, in this particular exact thing, if the investigators had believed this thing which the jury has ruled a "lie", then Libby telling this "lie" would have disclosed (or at least been a starting lead for disclosing) the truth that, in fact, Richard Armitage had leaked to at least one reporter before Libby showed any sign of being aware of the Plame factlet. So if this truly was a lie (or even an honest mistake where Libby thought is was true but was honestly mistaken) it would have been one of those weird plot twists where the lie/mistake actually disclosed the Truth About Earlier Leaker(s), while the truth about Russert would have obstructed the disclosure of the Truth About Earlier Leaker(s).

This has always stumped me about convicting for both perjury and obstruction on the Russert conversation -- either Libby's statement was not true, or it was not obstructive, it couldn't be both. I can imagine in fiction that you could claim a wild ironic plot twists where a witness lied to send investigators off on a wild goose chase, but because of the witness' ignorance, the wild goose chase was led with precision accuracy right to the actual culprit. But a) Fitzgerald never claimed this, and b) in fiction it's cool; in real life it just makes the prosecutor and investigators look like bumbling idiots -- especially since, in this particular case, they didn't go on the "wild goose chase" that would have led them to the actual leaker. Believing Libby pointed them in the direction of disclosing the Armitage-Woodward discussion, which no one at the FBI or Fitzgerald's office knew anything about until after indicting Libby; it was the investigators' unbelief which prevented the disclosure of the facts.

Libby told Cooper that he was hearing this story from reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had sent him, but he didn't know if it was even true.

Ok, this one has me even more stumped: Fitzgerald's version, as stated in the indictment, is that Libby confirmed to Cooper "without qualifications." Notice that Libby's version has TWO qualifications: "heard from reporters" and "doesn't know if it was even true" while Cooper's fragmentary notes recorded ONE qualification -- "doesn't know if it was even true". Again, what are the actual specific facts which would have been disclosed by the "true" version (with one qualification) that were prevented from disclosure by the "false" version? Again, completely independent of whether the "false" version was a lie, or an honest mistake, what material fact did the "false" version prevent from being disclosed? Even if Fitzgerald's indictment version (zero qualifications -- which was perjurious because it contradicted the evidence in his possession of one qualification) had been true, what material fact was not disclosed with the "untrue" statement about either or both qualification(s)?

Enlightened

Where are those CIA documents? If Hayden is being 100% truthful - those documents shoudl support that - where are they?

Please add the link of those official CIA documents -

Enlightened

Fitzgerald did NOT introduce official CIA documents to the court.

MikeS

I'm not sure how you could come to any other conclusion.

Aren't we talking about a case that Patrick Fitzgerald investigated for three years without unearthing a crime? Why would I reach a different conclusion?

Enlightened

Please link the Official CIA documents you said were filed by Fitzgerald.

You do need to link them to support your argument with facts.

If you are speaking about the document that Fitz filed that SUMMARIZES CIA documents on Plame's employment, then you are mistaken - Hayden's statement to Waxman is not corroborated by anything Fitz filed.

Cycloptichorn

MikeS-

When I stated:

The simplest solution is that the WH told people about this w/out realizing how much trouble it was going to make for them.

You responded with:

I think that is a fair and accurate statement. I don't see how you get from there to insisting a crime was committed.

If you think that it's 'fair and accurate' to say that the WH was leaking her identity, and you acknowledge that leaking her identity would be a crime - do you? - then it's hard to see how you could think there wasn't a crime committed.

The fact that Fitz was/is unable to proceed with the prosecution of the underlying crime due to the lies of Libby - hence the Obstruction of Justice charge - is not evidence that no crime was committed. So I'm not sure I fully understand your last response.

Roger

Dates of Service are common. It's usually used to verify employment, for employment. The classified information may be more than just dates. If she only got dates of service, it would be enought to start. What were the dates?

Another theory on the White House. Plame travels to foreign country. Plame is a known bad agent. Foreign country gets nervous. Foreign counry doesn't call CIA. Foreign country calls President. President turns it over to Vice President. Vice President decides to 'sell' the agent rather than ruin good relations. Clinton did this alot. CIA agent moves on. CIA agent ruins Niger, US government, US IC, DoJ, NSA, etc. Foreign country is happy they called. US IC is ruined. All CIA analysts move to DoD/NSA as planned by x Air Force Directors.

Overseas service is irrelevent to Plame and CIA. CIA always had a domestic mandate and Plame was working domestically. It is relevent to past cases. The evidence is in the files Plame requested.



Jeff Dobbs

Jane:
The circles have gotten way too boring.

Yeah, I never thought I'd get bored with a Plame thread...but...

Hey, tangentially related to Plame...

I always knew my crush would come to an end -- but I did't expect it to be, well, crushed.

Hillary in Hollywood

Later, [Hillary's] on to Bret Ratner's for a bigger event whose hosts include Eva Longoria, Penelope Cruz, Heather Graham, Christina Aguilera, Mike Myers and Jeremy Piven.

How could she do this to me?

Cycloptichorn

Enlightened -

If you are speaking about the document that Fitz filed that SUMMARIZES CIA documents on Plame's employment, then you are mistaken - Hayden's statement to Waxman is not corroborated by anything Fitz filed.

This is false. The statements corroborate one another. Hayden told Waxman that she was Covert and had worked overseas, the documents stated that she was covert and had worked oveseas.

I would welcome you to show me how the two statements, which assert the same thing, are not corroborative.

MikeS

and you acknowledge that leaking her identity would be a crime - do you?

Of course I don't! If that were so Fitz would have charged Armitage, Libby, et. al.

Jeff Dobbs

Later, [Hillary's] on to Bret Ratner's for a bigger event whose hosts include Eva Longoria, Penelope Cruz, Heather Graham, Christina Aguilera, Mike Myers and Jeremy Piven.


And by the way -- shouldn't Hillary avoid Christina Aguilera? Isn't she complicit in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo?

Enlightened

What CIA documents are you referring to? Can you please post the link to them.

Third time I've asked, could be a charm.

Roger

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/cnn-political-ticker-am_31.html

Louis Freeh has gone insane!

He knew all of it before they tried to impeach his boss.

hoosierhoops

- An ex-spy whose unmasking led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide is suing the Central Intelligence Agency, accusing it of unconstitutionally interfering with publication of her memoir.
_____________________________________
It's cashing in time!!
In my opinion this women has no right ( if she was a covert agent) to try to cash in on her service to the country as a spy..
We don't need to read about your 'secrets' so that you can make a buck..
There used to be more honor in working as a US Gov't employee entrusted with our secrets and procedural methods that are used to protect us. Everyone of us signed non-disclosure forms and raised our right hands to pledge to protect and defend this country...and keep our traps shut!!
like the spy stories from WW2..there is a time and place to disclose exciting stories of your exploits to the public many years hence...but i fear 10 or 20 years is to late to pay the down payment of that 500 series Benz..I am very disappointed in this ladies character....This is unseemly in greed and character..very disappointing indeed..

Specter
The fact that Fitz was/is unable to proceed with the prosecution of the underlying crime due to the lies of Libby - hence the Obstruction of Justice charge - is not evidence that no crime was committed. So I'm not sure I fully understand your last response.

Proof? None. Circular logic psycho. To know something is a lie means that you have unearthed the truth - otherwise you cannot prove it was a lie. Simple. So if Libby was lying to cover for his bosses, and if Fitz could prove that, then he would have the proof about your WH conspiracy theory. Get a grip on reality there bud.

Hayden told Waxman that she was Covert and had worked overseas

Proof? None. Waxman reported that Hayden said she was covert. Not denying that is what happened does not make it truth. You don't know. And if you take into account Waxman's continuous letters to Rice where he accuses the admin of lying in the 16 words - well I would not put it past such a partisan hack to lie about anything. Get a grip. Claiming that hearsay is proof is not. It is kind of like you saying Libby lied in the GJ when you were not there. Reality is out there for you. All you have to do is leave La-La land.

JM Hanes

Other Tom:

"It's been apparent to me since mid-trial that Libby lied. But to claim that had ne not done so, other crimes would have been established is overreaching by a long shot."

More fantasy than long shot. If justice depends on suspects confessing to their crimes, not lying, we are so screwed!

It doesn't, of course, which is why investigation & prosecution rely, in fact, on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of other witnesses in the first place. That's precisely how Fitzgerald, himself, got his own conviction of Libby.

In this case, the Special Prosecutor's investigation actually had unusual and dramatic advantages. In addition to unlimited time, money, discretion, and sympathetic, ground breaking rulings from courts along the way, Fitzgerald's potential suspects had been instructed by the President of the United States not to assert their 5th amendment rights.

Given the circumstances, if an A-list prosecutor still can't make a case, I, for one, would certainly prefer to conclude there was no case to be made. If, as all too many others apparently believe, justice can be so easily thwarted by the bumbling obfuscations of a Libby, then I can only say, again, we are soooo screwed.

Roger

XYZ. Y was leaked by CIA. Y was not need to know at CIA. At DoJ Y was need to know. DoJ didn't leak Y, it was State Department(CIA)? CIA leaked Y because CIA agent went to jail. Y was then subject to spy shit, again. DoJ goes above CIA to DIA. Y is later tortured-made, beaten, imprisoned, poisoned at least twice(after the leak), etc.

Y is still around. Y doesn't like CIA agents like Plame asking questions, especially after the leak, Y's status is then questioned, Y knows Plame is guilty. Y doesn't want to work in intelligence. Plame shows up and Y sees what is happening and no one is talking. Y decides to write book and call it 'fiction.'

No CIA documents introduced in court mean something?

Dale in Atlanta

Sorry, I only check in from time to time, anyone seen this yet?

Plame is suing the CIA over her book!

Looks like the document that Fitz is using to try and increase Libby's sentence, is part of the problem!

Need you "experts" to explain it all to me!

Dale in Atlanta

Aright, always happens, Hoosierhoops posted something about it, but this is more in depth, and looks like some of you will be able to tie a few things together from it!

MikeS

Proof? None. Circular logic psycho.

I think the Psyclops is arguing that Fitz could not prosecute people who admitted to a crime because Libby lied about conversations with reporters?

JM Hanes

Dale:

Better twice than never! It's tough just scrolling these long threads, much less keeping up with (or eventually, even remembering) what's been said.

topsecretk9

Dale -- i did too here

cboldt

The complaint is at the Wilson site.

SDNY - 07 CIV 4595

The complaint asks for the full contents of a February 10, 2006 letter from the CIA to Plame, that lists her years of service, not be forbidden material for her book. An unredacted part of the letter recites that she has a minimum of 20 years of service.

Enlightened

Armitage interviewed by FBI on Oct 2, 2003. If he was truthful, then the FBI has leaker and Novak source #1.

Rove interviewed by FBI on or about October 8, 2003. If he was truthful, then the FBI has leaker #2 and Novak source #3.

Novak is interviewed on October 7, 2003 and advises 3 sources, not revealing names.

By the time Scooter Libby first interviwed with the FBI on October 12, 2003 - the FBI had 2 of the 3 sources for Novak's column.

One question to Novak - "was Scooter Libby a source?" - No. Why would Scooter Libby even come into the picture at that point?

Rove and Armitage were the leakers, and did not violate the IIPA.

There was no reason for the investigators to interview anyone else, much less Scooter Libby who had absolutely nothing to do with the Novak column which precipated the investigation.

There was no underlying crime. There was a perjury trap obviously instigated by the FBI and perpetuated by Fitzgerald.

Not sure how Scooter Libby's allegedly "different" story would have or should have raised a red flag to the FBI when they already had their men.

Awwww. Poor little Valerie can't publish her bullshit story to make big $.

Dale in Atlanta

Dale -- i did too here

Posted by: topsecretk9


Alright, should've known I'd never come up with anything new for this darn story....


thanks..

PeterUK.

"Fitzgerald has strongly intimated that the lies told by Libby have kept him from going forward with the investigation. Thus the Obstruction of Justice charge. This is not dispositive evidence that there was, in fact, no underlying crime committed; just that Fitz doesn't have the evidence to take the VP or others to court,"

Ah,the Schumer gambit,"Just because we can't prove it doesn't mean there was no crime,in fact the absence of a crime is suspicious in itself".
The Central Committee of the Albanian Sludge Farmer's Collective in full swing. Remind me ,did the wall come down or was it moved further West?

Enlightened

October 8, 2003 - Scott McClellan specifically stated that Libby, Rove and Abrams were not leakers. Which is 100% correct.


And still the FBI went after Libby.

And lost their notes.

Enlightened

Hey PUK- Dontcha know that all you need is SUSPICION that a crime occurred to convict a man.

PeterUK.

"Miller told the jury that "a very irritated and angry" Libby told her in a confidential conversation on June 23, 2003, that the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war worked at the CIA. Libby had told investigators he believed he first learned that information from another journalist nearly three weeks later -- the assertion at the core of the charges against him."

There seems to be something missing.Ah yes,Val/Plame/Wilson,Jane Doe,Catwoman,no name.

Cycloptichorn

Proof? None. Circular logic psycho.

I think the Psyclops is arguing that Fitz could not prosecute people who admitted to a crime because Libby lied about conversations with reporters?

Not at all. I am arguing that Fitzgerald cannot bring a case to trial (or file charges) that he doesn't think he can win.

The defensive side - Office of VP - has a lot of advantages that normal defendants don't have. Cheney or others can't be treated as normal defendants. They have the entire power behind the most powerful segment of our gov't at their disposal to defend, and limitless funds to do so. Without rock-solid proof, filing charges is a waste of time.

I have little doubt that Fitz has tons of circumstantial evidence that shows Cheney was involved with this project; but he doesn't have a witness who will testify that Cheney told X to do X about it, and knew what he was saying would out a covert operative.

Libby isn't just lying about reporters, he's lying about conversations he had where Cheney and himself discussed Plame and what to do about it. There is little doubt that these discussions took place; there are handwritten notes on articles Cheney had which called for such discussions to take place. But without a witnesses' description, or some recording of the discussion, it's impossible to get the direct evidence you need to move forward.

Hence, the ObJustice charge. Libby was caught lying when he claimed reporters told him the identity of Plame. He claimed this to keep Fitz from knowing that it was not reporters at all who informed of this, but someone in the VPs' office, be it Cheney or someone else. The fact that he thought the reporters would uphold his side of the story later on was a mistake, but at the time, noone knew how big a mess this would turn into, so it's understandable that they tried this.

boris

He claimed this to keep Fitz from knowing that it was not reporters at all who informed of this, but someone in the VPs' office, be it Cheney or someone else.

No wonder your posts are so retarded and delusional. That statement reveals you do not know basic details of this case.

Libby admitted right up front that his notes indicated receiving the CIA wife detail from Cheney and/or Martin.

Enlightened

Oh Brother. Looks like the shrooms kicked in.

Sara

I've been out all day and I haven't had a chance to read thru the whole thread, but isn't the Defense response due for filing at 5 pm EST today?

Other Tom

I think that, at this point, we have all read enough from this poor Cycopetc. fellow to know that he is so painfully dumb that it's a waste of time to respond to him.

Meantime, I see that Plame has now filed a lawsuit against the CIA, which she accuses of having prevented her from cashing in on the "punishment" of her husband, who--despite having been punished by an unprecedentedly fascist regime, is still walking the streets, accepting awards, and appearing on low-rent talk shows. What an attractive pair they are.

Cycloptichorn

That's interesting.

Here's a link to the indictment:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf

Read pages 11-21. Libby lied to the GJ when he attributed his knowledge of the matter reporters, when he claimed he 'didn't remember that he already knew that at the time' and other such nonsense.

topsecretk9

On the letter -- the spokesperson said it was an administrative snafu - seems there are problems in the CIA counsel office.

Other Tom

Meanwhile in the rational world, here's one from the AP today:

"A battle raged in west Baghdad on Thursday after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said.

"U.S. forces backed by helicopter gunships clashed with suspected al- Qaida gunmen in western Baghdad's primarily Sunni Muslim Amariyah neighborhood in an engagement that lasted several hours, said the district councilman, who would not allow use of his name for fear of al-Qaida retribution.

"[T]he councilman said the al-Qaida leader in the Amariyah district, known as Haji Hameed, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained.

"Members of al-Qaida, who consider the district part of their so-called Islamic State of Iraq, were preventing students from attending final exams, shooting randomly and forcing residents to stay in their homes, the councilman said."

And Rosie is asking, "who are the terrorists?"

MikeS

Not at all. I am arguing that Fitzgerald cannot bring a case to trial (or file charges) that he doesn't think he can win.

You can't be serious! The people who 'outed' Plame admitted to it and you don't think Fitz can prove they did it.

Of course you don't mean that. You mean Fitz didn't think he could prove that the thing they did was a crime.

I agree with Fitz, not Cyclops!!

PeterUK.

"There is little doubt that these discussions took place; there are handwritten notes on articles Cheney had which called for such discussions to take place".

I have had hand written notes promising to pay me x amount of money,they bounced.


"But without a witnesses' description, or some recording of the discussion, it's impossible to get the direct evidence you need to move forward".

So Fitzgerald's case was based on one witness,seems the man is trying to gold plate his dismal investigation to justify all the resources he wasted on this miserable bag of magic beans.

Cycloptichorn

Above should have written 'to reporters.'

OT,
I think that, at this point, we have all read enough from this poor Cycopetc. fellow to know that he is so painfully dumb that it's a waste of time to respond to him.

Insult is the last defense of a failed argument, as I'm sure you know. You also seem to have a problem spelling my name; might want to get that checked out.

JM Hanes

Jane:

I suppose somebody's got to represent the lefty articles of faith, and at least Cycloptic does it more politely than most. I've begun to think maybe it's time just to sit back and enjoy watching as the purveyors of grand White House conspiracies are reduced to claiming that a guy like Libby managed to keep The Truth from the combined forces of the DoJ, the CIA, the MSM, the Democrats, and the smartest prosecutor ever with unlimited resources at his disposal. Paper tigers all! Who knew?

It's a take-your-pleasures-where-ye-may thing, because by the time the precedents they've been applauding come back to haunt them, they'll have found someone else to blame.

Dale in Atlanta

Wait, let me get in on this...

Yesterday, I published my fanciful interpretation of "Cycloptichorn"'s name, the orign of it, etc.

I did it completely without facts, without knowledge of why he choose it, what it meant, etc., and then pontificated at length as to it's true meaning, etc.!

Cycloptichorn posted shortly later, that I was indeed, 100% wrong, that instead of a juvenile play on words, in fact, he was blind in one eye, and also a former Aggie; hence his name!

Hence, I not only had no facts, interpreted them incorrectly, but I also came to the wrong conclusion!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

WHO does that sound like....Hmmmmmm?????

PeterUK.

"You also seem to have a problem spelling my name; might want to get that checked out".

Why?

Enlightened

Jason? L?

Cycloptichorn

JM -

I've begun to think maybe it's time just to sit back and enjoy watching as the purveyors of grand White House conspiracies are reduced to claiming that a guy like Libby managed to keep The Truth from the combined forces of the DoJ, the CIA, the MSM, the Democrats, and the smartest prosecutor ever with unlimited resources at his disposal. Paper tigers all! Who knew?

Shrug. It's difficult to prove that any crime where there is no 'smoking gun.' There are a lot of ways that competent defense lawyers can show reasonable doubt to a jury, and unless you have proof that goes beyond that - such as eyewitness, first-hand accounts that people haven't been telling the truth - it would be difficult to imagine going to trial.

Not to mention the fact that as VP Cheney enjoys special protections from prosecution, that his lawyers would no doubt argue apply to this case (they have done exactly this in the Civil trial, btw). Without a rock-solid account, with witnesses who will testify to that fact, that Cheney did something illegal, there's no point in wasting anyone's time.

For all the crap Fitz gets around here, I would think that supporters of Libby and the WH would be happy that he has REFUSED at every opportunity to leak to the press; to implicate others by name who he hasn't filed charges for; to talk about charges other than the ones he has filed. If he was a looser prosecutor, say, of the Ken Starr variety, the media frenzy would have been far worse.

As it is, he still won't discuss any aspect of the case publicly. You can disagree with the fact that he secured a conviction based upon the evidence he presented, but it's tough to argue that the guy has been gunning against the WH the whole time, or is some sort of Democrat in prosecutors' clothing.

Cycloptichorn

Dale:
Cycloptichorn posted shortly later, that I was indeed, 100% wrong, that instead of a juvenile play on words, in fact, he was blind in one eye, and also a former Aggie; hence his name!

Wrong again. I'm a former Longhorn. Former Aggie wouldn't make any sense with the name.

Thanks though for admitting your error, cheers

Jane

Time to ignore the troll.

So does anyone else think that the goodlooking preppy personal injury lawyer from Atlanta who has a weird and virulent strain of TB - and who has a father in law who works for the CBC in the weird strains of TB department is more than a coincidence? And if so, to what end?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame