A federal grand jury today indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, after a two-year investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity but spared—at least for now —President Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove.
Libby was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The indictment charged that he gave misleading information to the grand jury, allegedly lying about information he discussed with three news reporters. It alleged that he committed perjury before the grand jury in March 2004 and that he also lied to FBI agents investigating the case.
Of course, given the dismissal by the left of the severity of perjury charges against Bill Clinton, I'm sure they will see this as no big deal.
Also it should be noted, the indictment does not have anything to do with identifying who leaked Plame's name. I was under the impression that was what this was all about:
Libby essentially was charged with lying to protect his boss, the vice president. He testified that he learned of the identity of the CIA agent in question, Valerie Plame, from reporters. But evidence emerged indicating that he actually learned Plame's name and her role in the CIA from Cheney. The evidence reportedly includes notes Libby took in a June 12, 2003, meeting with Cheney.
Could it be because Valerie Plame wasn't a covert CIA agent?
AP is now reporting Libby has resigned.
UPDATE [Jon Henke]
I don't have a great deal to add at this point, beyond "don't let the door hit you in your ass on the way out, Scooter". In case that doesn't go without saying...consider it said. Underlying crime or not, obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements are crimes in their own right. If the same is found of anybody else—up to and including the President—I'll be perfectly happy to see them charged, prosecuted and, if guilty, "frog-marched", too.
The short version is this: Libby learned of Valerie Plame/Wilson's identity from 4 different government officials, and not—as he claimed—from reporters. But he told the FBI and Grand jury that he'd heard it first from reporters. Fitzgerald's case against Libby appears to be very, very strong.
The main question remaining is whether Libby was encouraged by other officials (Rove, Cheney, etc) to spread that knowledge to reporters, or whether he did it on his own.
It also appears that Libby may have been aware of the classified status of Valerie Plame/Wilson—yes, Fitzgerald confirms that her identity was classified—having told his deputy "there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly".
MORE [Jon Henke]
Ok, let's cut this off at the knees, because it's a claim a lot of Righties are going to be making in upcoming days. Case in point:
You don't need to empanel a grand jury to decide if Valerie Plame was a covert agent, or if any of the various national security laws were broken. This question could have been, and should have been, answered in the first month of legal investigation, using no greater investigative resources than a law library.
And yet, two years later, Fitzgerald apparently finds there was no violation of the IIPA, the Espionage Act, or any act involving the dissemination of classified information.
Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge.
Scooter Libby, the release notes, "was obligated by federal criminal statute, regulations, executive orders, and a written non-disclosure agreement not to disclose classified information to unatuthorized persons, and to properly safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure."
Yet, "on or about June 23, 2003, Libby met with Judith Miller of the New York Times" and "informed Miller Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA." He later (but before July 14, 2003) spoke of Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) to Matt Cooper, and to Miller again.
It's unclear to me why Fitzgerald has not brought charges against Libby for this disclosure, but it's now settled fact that Valerie Plame's occupation was classified.
Similar to your thought about the left thinking that Lying wasn’t a big deal, I wonder if the right will be as outraged about these lies as they were with Clinton’s? Somehow I doubt it.
I wonder if the left will come to believe that making false statements is serious enough to require the removal of a President from office. Somehow I doubt it.
Similar to your thought about the left thinking that Lying wasn’t a big deal, I wonder if the right will be as outraged about these lies as they were with Clinton’s? Somehow I doubt it.
Political role reversal is pretty common, Curt ... we both know that. It’s not about principles, it’s about politics (i.e. who’s ox is being gored).
Now that the Right has thrown all they could at Bill Clinton only to find he had an illicit affair, and the Left has gotten their 12 buck in Libby. Maybe just maybe we could return so some form of decency in our political discourse? Somehow I doubt it.
If Libby lied, he’s an idiot and adios to him. Let him rot in jail. That said, this whole thing is now exposed for the tempest in a teapot sham it was.
2 years and this is what we get? Nothing related to the original charges?? No Rove being frogmarched? No takedown of the Bush administration??? Just nailing some guy named Scooter? Somehow I really doubt that no matter how the MSM gins this up, it’s going to do much political damage, certainly not nearly as much as if Rove was indicted.
Maybe just maybe we could return so some form of decency in our political discourse? Somehow I doubt it.
What is this "decency" in discourse you speak of? I think that compared to past eras this is a VERY decent discourse. There is far less mudslinging and idle vilification today than previously, IMO. Its is not "Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa. Gone off to Washington, Haw Haw HAW." I don’t believe anyone’s wife has been accused of being a THESPIAN, recently, either.
These appeals to decency are appeals to a non-existent past. Let’s move on and get over THAT, and not spend our time wishing for something that has never been.
Now that the Right has thrown all they could at Bill Clinton only to find he had an illicit affair, and the Left has gotten their 12 buck in Libby. Maybe just maybe we could return so some form of decency in our political discourse? Somehow I doubt it.
Similar to your thought about the left thinking that Lying wasn’t a big deal, I wonder if the right will be as outraged about these lies as they were with Clinton’s? Somehow I doubt it.
I love this talking point. What conservative (other than Kay Bailey Hutchinson) has said that perjury is no big deal and shouldn’t be prosecuted? I think Libby should be prosecuted if he lied and it seems to be the consensus on this blog. There may be some people on the right who are being inconsistent, but no where near as many as on the left. Libby should be prosecuted on the evidence and the chips should fall where they may.
The main question remaining is whether Libby was encouraged by other officials (Rove, Cheney, etc) to spread that knowledge to reporters, or whether he did it on his own.
I just got done listening to the Fitzgerald press conference and he was asked this specific question, i.e. does he have any evidence that Cheney encouraged Libby to tell the press about Plame or to lie to the investigators once the investigation had begun. Fitzgerald made clear that he is not alleging that the vice-president did anything illegal. He also said that when there is evidence of a crime he obtains an indictment rather than issue public allegations to the press. He also explained (I’m paraphrasing) that his refusal to explicitly state someone is innocent does not mean that he doesn’t think they are innocent. It just means that he doesn’t make public statements about alleged guilt or innocence outside of the indictments he obtains. I think it’s wishful thinking for Bush haters to think that Cheney will be indicted. Fitzgerald also made the point that there is nothing illegal about government officials (presumably with proper security clearance) discussing Plame amongst themselves.
I also just went over to DailyKos and those clowns seem to be in consensus that Fitzgerald hasn’t completed his investigation and that it’s only a matter of time until Rove, Cheney etc. get indicted. It’s a text book example of denial. There may be further indictments, but I didn’t get the impression that Fitzgerald intends to continue his investigation in any significant way.
Fitzgerald was also asked if Plame was "covert" and he essentially said no. I wonder if anyone else heard his answer to that question and got the same impression that I did? He did say that her identity/job status was classified, however.
Fitzgerald was also asked if Plame was "covert" and he essentially said no. I wonder if anyone else heard his answer to that question and got the same impression that I did? He did say that her identity/job status was classified, however.
Sean Hannity said:
“I don’t think anybody exposed anything. I think everybody knew in town what [Valerie Wilson] did for a living. There’s no evidence that she was covert. None.”
Ann Coulter said:
“She hadn’t been a covert agent for six years, and everyone in Washington knew she worked for the CIA.”
The Indictment:
At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
If Libby lied, he’s an idiot and adios to him. Let him rot in jail. That said, this whole thing is now exposed for the tempest in a teapot sham it was.
Digby said:
This is the first time in 130 years that a sitting White House official has been indicted. The last time was in the Grant administration.
The comparisons to Clinton are illuminating. I hope they are made. Clinton lied about an adulterous affair because adulterous affairs are wrong. Libby apparently lied about Cheney’s involvment. Why? Well, the simplest and most likely explanation is because he knew what Cheney did was wrong. If what Cheney did was not wrong, why lie?
MK, apparently Plame’s employment status could have been "classified" without her being a "covert" agent as far as the CIA and the law are concerned. Notwithstanding that fact, Libby wasn’t even indicted for mishandling classified information. Either way, Fitzgerald was asked the question directly and he essentially said that she wasn’t "covert".
Also, "not common knowledge" outside the intelligence community doesn’t mean "unknown" outside the intelligence community. This is an indictment, it is worded in precise terms and it was intentionally worded that way to reflect the fact that her identity was not entirely secret. If Plame’s identity had been completely secret, the indictment would have said so.
Last night Bob Woodward, a notorious conservative apologist, said on the Larry King Show that "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson’s wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn’t have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment." That seems to support the position that the CIA didn’t want her identity publicized but that she wasn’t a "covert" agent engaged in espionage.
Hey! I wasn’t indicted to day either. Why no press coverage!?!?
It is so. NOT. Fair!
Back on topic, does anyone know the difference between "classified" and "covert"? It’s my understanding that most people who work for the CIA are "classified".
It’s unclear to me why Fitzgerald has not brought charges against Libby for this disclosure, but it’s now settled fact that Valerie Plame’s occupation was classified
That’s fine, but still doesn’t speak to being "covert"
At any rate, seeing how after 2 years Fitzgerald didn’t discover any crime relating to the change of maliciously outing Valerie Plame, and only has a perjury rap against Scooter which may or may not bring conviction.....I gotta say, this is a bit of a vindication for the Bush admininstration. But don’t expect to see that addressed in the breathless MSM reports
Clinton lied about an adulterous affair because adulterous affairs are wrong.
Wrong again. Clinton lied because he wanted to avoid legal liability and political embarassment in a sexual harassment lawsuit in which the Plaintiff’s theory of the case was a hostile work environment. The questions about his conduct in the workplace with women other than the Plaintiff, i.e. Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers etc., were all relevant and material because of the Violence Against Women Act. That statute makes that information admissible into evidence at trial and it supercedes the Federal Evidence Code. Guess who signed that legislation into law in 1994? Bill Clinton. He was lying to avoid the same scrutiny that thousands of other Defendants in sexual harassment lawsuits had been forced to endure because of the law he created. In typical elitist fashion, Clinton didn’t think the law should apply to him.
Plus, Clinton lied to avoid responsibility for something he had actually done (i.e. sexually harassed/assaulted Paula Jones). Libby, if he committed perjury, should be punished. However, this entire episode began when the administration responded truthfully to false allegations made by Joe Wilson. Stating that Plame worked at the CIA and was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger (which was also true) was necessary because administration critics were asking why a political hack like Wilson had been sent on such a sensitive mission.
Bob Woodward’s claim undercuts the argument that even if this wasn’t illegal, it was immoral. Plame was a liberal bureaucrat who actively undermined the public policy of elected public officials. She apparently shared the anger of Colin Powell’s former chief of staff about the Bush Administration’s refusal to accede to the will of the bureaucracy. Explaining the facts about how this all happened to the press(I’m not talking about Libby’s alleged perjury to the grand jury) isn’t as venal or wrong as Clinton’s purposeful obstruction of a civil rights lawsuit for purely political and monetary reasons. So, no, Libby didn’t lie about his conversations with Cheney and others because it was wrong. If he lied, he did so to avoid personal, legal liability. What is so pathetic is that he apparently would not have been in legal jeopardy if he had just told the truth.
Once again the moonbats have already found Libby guilty. We haven’t heard Libby’s side yet. Two years of fishing and no crime was committed. Fitzgerald can call Plame "classified" all he wants but he coiuln’t charge anyone for outing her because it was no crime.
Libby’s lawyer will lay the whole case out before the jury. Fitzgerald was BSing about Plame at his news conference. Who cares where Libby got his information from? If he did get it from a CIA person SO What? How does this obstruct any investigation into a non-crime.
Fitzgerald is a hack who has wasted two years. He will go far in the Democratic party.
Wrong again. Clinton lied because he wanted to avoid legal liability and political embarassment in a sexual harassment lawsuit in which the Plaintiff’s theory of the case was a hostile work environment. The questions about his conduct in the workplace with women other than the Plaintiff, i.e. Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers etc., were all relevant and material because of the Violence Against Women Act. That statute makes that information admissible into evidence at trial and it supercedes the Federal Evidence Code. Guess who signed that legislation into law in 1994? Bill Clinton. He was lying to avoid the same scrutiny that thousands of other Defendants in sexual harassment lawsuits had been forced to endure because of the law he created. In typical elitist fashion, Clinton didn’t think the law should apply to him.
Interesting ... but wrong. First, VAWA doesn’t "supercede" the Evidence Code, silly. No one piece of legislation makes the Fed Rules irrelevant in their entirety. (You are obviously not a lawyer.) This statement alone shows you have no clue what you are talking about. (Can you imagine ... all irrelevant evidence admissable, all character evidence admissable, all prior bad acts admissiable - nor rules against hearsay? Again, you are clueless.)
Second, the contact with Lewinsky was consensual, not hostile. It was materially different from the Willey and Flowers allegations. It was the opposite, in fact. Indeed, Clinton’s lawyers could have used it to show Clinton’s workplace behavior was not generally hostile.
FItz didn’t indict under the "outing a covert agent" charge because he couldn’t - everybody but the Kos kids admits that Plame wasn’t covert under the defintion of that statute.
He didn’t indict on "exposing classified information" because it would set a precedent that would have -literally- exposed a large percentage of the DC population, bureaucrats and journalists alike, to criminal charges.
Why did he indict? BTHOOM. Maybe he didn’t want to finish a two year investigation with "nothing" to show for it.
Once again the moonbats have already found Libby guilty. We haven’t heard Libby’s side yet. Two years of fishing and no crime was committed. Fitzgerald can call Plame "classified" all he wants but he coiuln’t charge anyone for outing her because it was no crime.
Can you say self-contradicting?
We shouldn’t pre-judge Libby because his trial is not over yet.
But no crime was committed in outing Plame even though the investigation is not over yet.
Ok, so why doesn’t one of you geniuses explain what Scooter’s - and the rest of those jokers for that matter - real purpose was? Lost in all of this is that there WAS NO GOOD reason to do what everyone knows these bastards did. Why tell Matt Cooper and Judy Miller and Robert Novak and Walter Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA? What possible reason could there be?
Notice, MK has already started the left wing lying. Hey Jackass, The indictment says he lied about his knowledge of Plame and her employment. There was nothing at all about Rove, and you know it.
Notice, MK has already started the left wing lying. Hey Jackass, The indictment says he lied about his knowledge of Plame and her employment. There was nothing at all about Rove, and you know it.
Jackass? C’mon - you can do better than that.
Read allegation 31 of the Indictment. It actually says the Libby lied about his source of knowledge regarding Plame’s status. He didn’t lie about his "knowledge of Plame and her employment." He lied about who told him.
Now, why would he do that Kyle? C’mon Buddy, let’s hear it.
A black army sergeant is serving 25 years for having consensual sex with recruits, because the power of a drill instructor is too high over recruits to make consent valid. How much higher is the power of the president over an intern? Clinton walked, the Sergeant serves time.
The Fitz song and dance today misinformed. He used the term classified as if it implied the same thing for people as it does for documents. My mother was classified - she was a GS-13. As soon as it had been determined there was no violation of the law the investigation became a gossip session and a waste of money.
Jon has the appropriate perspective on this story. However, like a story in the NYT, one must look very, very carefully to discern it.
"I don’t have a great deal to add at this point, beyond "don’t let the door hit you in your ass on the way out, Scooter". In case that doesn’t go without saying...consider it said. Underlying crime or not, obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements are crimes in their own right. If the same is found of anybody else—up to and including the President—I’ll be perfectly happy to see them charged, prosecuted and,
Interesting ... but wrong. First, VAWA doesn’t "supercede" the Evidence Code, silly. No one piece of legislation makes the Fed Rules irrelevant in their entirety. (You are obviously not a lawyer.) This statement alone shows you have no clue what you are talking about. (Can you imagine ... all irrelevant evidence admissable, all character evidence admissable, all prior bad acts admissiable - nor rules against hearsay? Again, you are clueless.)
Second, the contact with Lewinsky was consensual, not hostile. It was materially different from the Willey and Flowers allegations. It was the opposite, in fact. Indeed, Clinton’s lawyers could have used it to show Clinton’s workplace behavior was not generally hostile.
MK, you are typically smug and clueless. This is getting way off topic but, as usual, you’re wrong. I actually am a lawyer and have litigated several sexual harassment lawsuits over the last few years. I plead guilty to inartfully phrasing my previous comment but I never said that VAWA "makes the Fed rules irrelevant in their entirety." I was referring to Federal Rule of Evidence 415 and its effect on long standing rules of evidence regarding prior bad acts (FRE 404).
Three new federal rules of evidence (FRE 413-415) became effective pursuant to the VAWA. FRE 415 provides that "evidence of that [defendant’s] commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible..." There isn’t any judicial discretion. FRE 415 conflicts with the long standing rule of evidence (FRE 404) that prior bad acts are inadmissible subject to several narrow exceptions. FRE 415 does in fact supercede FRE 404 in sexual misconduct cases.
You don’t have to take my word for it numbnuts, this conflict has been written about pretty extensively [http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/77-3/773-947.pdf] and and three Judicial Conference Advisory Committees strongly opposed the adoption of these rules for just that reason. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule413.htm The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence also surveyed "all federal judges, about 900 evidence law professors, 40 women’s rights organizations, and 1,000 other individuals and interested organizations…" about proposed FRE 413-415 and "the overwhelming majority of judges, lawyers, law professors, and legal organizations who responded opposed new Evidence Rules 413, 414, and 415..." because "the new rules……could diminish significantly the protections that have safeguarded persons accused in criminal cases and parties in civil cases against undue prejudice. These protections form a fundamental part of American jurisprudence and have evolved under long-standing rules and case law." In other words, these rules are in conflict and FRE 413-415 take precedence over FRE 404 in sexual misconduct cases.
Just in case you’re wondering, "sexual assault" as contemplated by FRE 413-415 is a defined term which includes attempting to cause "another to engage in a sexual act by placing that other person in fear..." You may not believe Paula Jones was telling the truth, but that was exactly what she alleged in her complaint and these rules of evidence clearly applied.
You are also wrong about the importance of Lewinsky’s consent. Jones was trying to show that Clinton used the women who worked for him for his own sexual gratification. Consensual or not, that can serve as evidence of a hostile work environment for women who don’t want to have sex with him. Shockingly enough, I actually agree with you to the extent that this type of evidence is irrelevant most of the time. However, you should tell that to your fellow liberals in the plaintiff’s bar who love this rule because it allows them to dig up dirt on defendants which usually doesn’t have any bearing on a defendant’s culpability but does provide great leverage in getting a defendant to settle rather than have his wife and family find out about any affairs he may have had in the past. It doesn’t matter that Lewinsky consented to the sex, Jones was conducting discovery and has the right to truthful responses to her deposition questions. If some of those questions produce information that ends up not supporting their case, so be it.
The bottom line is that Clinton didn’t care about eliminating this fundamental and fair rule because it was a good political move with his feminist base and his ambitious wife. Then, when he was actually subjected to this provision of the evidence code, he decided that it wasn’t fair to be asked those questions so he didn’t have to comply. Clinton lied to deceive, the Bush Administration (except for Libby’s grand jury testimony about his conversations with journalists) told the truth about someone who told lies about them.
All the TV geniuses, O’Reilly, Gergen, Buchanan, Scarborough, etc. are asking the same question: Why would Scooter lie?
They all scratch their heads and look perplexed. Well, the answer is obvious. Scooter is covering for Cheney. Should we believe he was some loose cannon on the Cheney ship and decided on his own to spread this information to the press?
Scooter is looking at 10 years at the bottom of the Federal hole. He will roll over on whoever he has to in order to walk.
John Dean tonight called Scooter a "firewall" for Cheney and said Fitzgerald is testing the strength of that firewall. I wouldn’t be so sure this thing is over.
Jeeze, calm down! Wipe the spittle from your pink little lips! You guys are flopping around like fishes out of the water. Someone had to take the fall, eh? He ain’t your guy, you are libertarians. Relish the moment and strike with your opportunity to become the new 2nd party.
Calm down! Deep breaths! There is more to come, I promise you.
Why are the libertarians not starting to run attack ads against incumbents who were cozy with GW re; photo ops, last elections ads. etc.?
If I was a libertarian running for GA governor, all I’d do is run TV ads over and over, the hugging fests of POTUS and Sonny Boy. I’d tie them at the shoelaces, political anchor that GW is.
I’d also run Cathy Cox ads showing her testifying on ’03 to repeal a state statute that required V-VAT. Today, she is all for passing a bill enacting V-VAT.
I don’t have a great deal to add at this point, beyond "don’t let the door hit you in your ass on the way out, Scooter". In case that doesn’t go without saying...consider it said. Underlying crime or not, obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements are crimes in their own right. If the same is found of anybody else—up to and including the President—I’ll be perfectly happy to see them charged, prosecuted and, if guilty, "frog-marched", too.
You seem under the impression that Libby’s been convicted, Jon. I’ll have to refer to my council, questions of this nature, I suppose; Apparently, my understanding of legal matters is somewhat skewed. I mean, doesn’t a trial come first?
*Yawn* Another pointless Washington diversion from what they are doing to our country. I’m surprised a smart blog like this wastes bandwidth on this pseudo-drama.
I’m a redstater who agrees that if found guilty of the charges, Libby should pay the consequences. I have not yet heard Bush’s war room equivalent Carville, Begala, and Davis lashing out at Fitzgerald like they did at Starr. Why is that? Why the politics of character assassination on the one hand and the acceptance of the facts on the other? Oh, tht’s right, Bush doesn’t have a war room. The primary reason for that is he doesn’t need one. Clinton had to have one 24/7. As MK proves, he still needs one.
MK, "[Clinton’s] contact with Lewinsky was consensual..."
The most powerful man on the planet, a silvering 50-something, received sexual favors from one of his 21 year-old female employees - and lied about it in front of a grand jury.
Since he was a Democrat, it’s consensual "contact" (BTW quaint use of the word "contact"), and his lies are "OK." But if he had been a Republican, you’d call it "sexual harrassment" and nail him to the wall. Right? (Remember Bob Packwood?)
If Libby is judged guilty, he should serve time. But for now, I think the heat is building under Wilson, Plame and friends, despite the ginned-up narrative from their MSM abettors. -Steve
“Ok, let’s cut this off at the knees… It’s unclear to me why Fitzgerald has not brought charges against Libby for this disclosure…”
Jon, you have not only cut nothing off at the knees, but apparently something has cut you off at the neck. How can it be unclear? If Scooter jaywalked in the last two years, the prosecutor must be aware of it. When there is no indictment after this intensive kind of investigation, one must assume that there is no evidence of a crime sufficient for such an indictment. To other than the liberal media (and moonbats) that means that the accused didn’t freakin’ do it! At least that is the legal result. Moonbats can slouch away mumbling about inept or corrupt prosecutors (or post on their internet magazines) but a reasonable person would conclude that no crime was committed if a competent prosecutor failed to ask for an indictment on a charge after this thorough an investigation. It is unclear to me why you are frothing at the mouth about "Righties" accepting the situation. What part of “no indictment” don’t you understand?
"Since he was a Democrat, it’s consensual "contact""
Anonymous said:
"Ummmm. No. It’s consensual because Monica said it was. (Wow. It’s so simple, I don’t get how Steve missed it.)"
Which is both true and irrelevant. According to the presumptions in the law by which sexual discrimination and misconduct charges are litigated, it is not possible for someone in a weaker position in the job hierarchy to meaningfully, legally consent to a sexual act.
Protecting himself from the legal consequences of his actions in a lawsuit brought persuant to the laws he had personally endorsed was why Clinton lied; for that "high crime or misdemeanor", he should have been removed from office.
Ummmm. No. It’s consensual because Monica said it was. (Wow. It’s so simple, I don’t get how Steve missed it.)
Just DAMN! Look, if I get caught having sex with anyone at my office (even my WIFE) I’m fired. Period. No question asked. If I’m a manager and I’m having sex with someone who works for me, I’m not only fired but I’m probably going to be sued for. Consensual or not. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? Did you read the post about the recruiter? What is your defense for that man?
Funny how we keep getting dragged back to the wonderful Clinton presidency.
And a word to jt007 - nice work on MK. My guess is that is the last we’ll see of Billy Madison in this post. Just like a dog that gets a swift kick in the ass, his tail is between his legs and he’s hiding behind the couch... waiting to sneak out and bite someones ankles.
"Jeeze, calm down! Wipe the spittle from your pink little lips! You guys are flopping around like fishes out of the water. Someone had to take the fall, eh? He ain’t your guy, you are libertarians. Relish the moment and strike with your opportunity to become the new 2nd party."
If you actually think this has the legs, the coattails, to make the LP a "2nd" party in any jurisdiction this nation, you are profoundly mentally impaired.
"Calm down! Deep breaths! There is more to come, I promise you."
You could be perfectly right, and it still won’t change the calculus of my statement above. The only legal action which could make the LP the "2nd" party in this nation is to pick one of the majors and arrest and convict every elected/appointed member of that party down to the last dogcatcher.
Also Rick, the goal is to make it the 1st party.
"Why are the libertarians not starting to run attack ads against incumbents who were cozy with GW re; photo ops, last elections ads. etc.?"
Because this doesn’t taint GW politically in any way, dumbass. Scooter personally and individually is going down (or not) for what he did (or not). What, do you think Scooter and GW are conjoined twins?
"If I was a libertarian running for GA governor, all I’d do is run TV ads over and over, the hugging fests of POTUS and Sonny Boy. I’d tie them at the shoelaces, political anchor that GW is."
And you’d stay an unelected candidate from a minor party that most people think just wants to be legally stoned.
"I’d also run Cathy Cox ads showing her testifying on ’03 to repeal a state statute that required V-VAT. Today, she is all for passing a bill enacting V-VAT.
Over and over....
Yes sir, it is a sad day for America."
Oh, you and I agree there, so far as it goes...
The Democrats must be exploded as a party as a first priority, because they are the weaker party of the duopoly. It is nonsensical to concentrate any efforts in any other fashion. Weakening the Republicans just restores balance to an oligarchy that is unassailable by 3rd parties when balanced.
Destroy the Democrats, and THEN the Republicans can be split off into the differing minarchist/federalist portion (and be taken into a libertarian party which may actually be able to do some legislating) and the corporatist, ecclesiastic state elements of the GOP can try to form some coalition with the greens, watermelon, and race-baiting elements of the Dems.
Mind you, actually restricting the fed to its constitution bounds just means the natural target of the corporatist and ecclesiastic state enthusiasts becomes state and local jurisdictions. That fight won’t end ever in its entirety.
Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger, had to have been approved by somebody at the CIA above the level of the Valerie Plaime. Assuming the CIA actually did its homework, and get some decent background on Joe Wilson before sending him on such a mission, someone must have known what the outcome of such a mission would be, and what the political fallout would be, given his longstanding support of left wing causes and left wing politicians.
The only other option would be, that the CIA did not do its homework, and that the CIA was used against the White House as a subversive tool.
It comes down to this; Either the CIA was used as a subversive political tool with the CIA’s knowledge and approval or without it. Either way, national security is clearly involved, to say nothing of criminal activity, committed in support of Democrats.
Funny thing, how the Democrats in here, (MK for example) and out on the street haven’t been saying much about this angle, particularly given their oft stated desire to protect national security. Also a bit odd how Fitzgerald hasn’t mentioned it, either.
So, Plame’s status was "classified". What does that mean? My understanding of the law in question is that there is a distinction between "covert" and "classified", where exposing a "covert" agent is against the law, but exposing a "classified" one may not be.
Am I the only one that finds all this suggestion that the CIA has been and/or is somehow stridently partisan enough to repeatedly lie to the administration in order to embarass them to be, for lack of a better term, f**king looney?
If people are seriously in the CIA that are like that, then perhaps the screaming should be redirected towards *gasp*....THE CIA!
Gee, bepsycho, the next thing you will be suggesting is that the liberal menace has taken over the beloved New York Times (the paper of record, for gosh sakes!) and that there are people there who actually slant real important news stories (and spike others [see SwiftVets]) for political reasons. Please. Oh…sorry, I meant *gasp*. Am I the only one who thinks that stupid elite liberals like Imapsycho are f**king idiots?
Funny thing, how the Democrats in here, (MK for example) and out on the street haven’t been saying much about this angle, particularly given their oft stated desire to protect national security. Also a bit odd how Fitzgerald hasn’t mentioned it, either.
Shouldn’t we be asking why ?
No, we shouldn’t be asking and Fitzgerald hasn’t mentioned it because your entire premise is silly. Surely you can do better than this.
You missed the point, Bob. If partisanship is really that strong in the CIA then they’re in need of a purge, that’d be like having a hospital staffed by people who didn’t believe in modern medicine or hygiene. Your example w/ the NYT is completely unrelated since bias is to be expected of the media. There is a difference between the Times slanting info in print & CIA agents slanting info to the president, the latter might as well be treason.
BTW: I’m not a "liberal". Never have been. Funny how I disagree with something and all of a sudden I’m lumped in with the Dems. How long have you been coming to this site, Bob?
Ok, so why doesn’t one of you geniuses explain what Scooter’s - and the rest of those jokers for that matter - real purpose was? Lost in all of this is that there WAS NO GOOD reason to do what everyone knows these bastards did. Why tell Matt Cooper and Judy Miller and Robert Novak and Walter Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA? What possible reason could there be?
You and I could speculate all day, but—to borrow a line from Bob Somerby—I have no idea, and neither do you. Hopefully, Fitzgerald will investigate and disclose enough information so that we’ll know. Until then, we’re all guessing.
You seem under the impression that Libby’s been convicted, Jon.
No. From the available evidence in the indictment, I’m of the opinion that Libby was at the very least noty "properly safeguard[ing] classified information against unauthorized disclosure". There may be more to it, but his talks with Miller and Cooper seem rather clear. Perhaps it was an accident, but even discussing her with un-vetted persons was still improper.
Jon, you have not only cut nothing off at the knees, but apparently something has cut you off at the neck. How can it be unclear?
The fact that Fitzgerald didn’t bring an indictment today does not mean he won’t ever; nor does it mean no crime was committed. Fitzgerald is specifically alleging in the indictment that Libby disclosed classified information to reporters.
So, Plame’s status was "classified". What does that mean? My understanding of the law in question is that there is a distinction between "covert" and "classified", where exposing a "covert" agent is against the law, but exposing a "classified" one may not be.
Those are good questions. I don’t know the answers. At the end of the day, though—and apart from the "covert" question—Libby was legally obligated not to disclose classified information.
BTW: I’m not a "liberal". Never have been. Funny how I disagree with something and all of a sudden I’m lumped in with the Dems. How long have you been coming to this site, Bob?
He’s been coming here for quite awhile, and he’s been trying to antagonize people with the "you’re really a liberal" schtick for almost as long. I’m not sure why, but he seems to enjoy getting a rise out of people by doing that.
Define for me what a "liberal" is today and I will be sure to stay on whichever side of the definition is appropriate. I accuse people of being liberal to shame them. Too many people today spout liberal positions that are the result of their reading the NYT, AP, Reuters and CNN spins [you must choose: either these media are the "usual suspects" or I am spouting right wing propaganda learned in the vast right wing conspiracy cocoon] [and isn’t it interesting (not to be like McCarthy, for those of you who remember those days) that those same names keep coming up in this context, time after time] with no understanding of the topics covered. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it is a duck. If you are going to adopt the idiotic positions on issues of the day that are presented by the MSM in their quest to discredit the Bush administration you must be prepared to be identified as a supporter of the liberal agenda, i.e. a liberal. If you eschew the idiotic and only support questionable positions of the MSM you will probably avoid the taint. We are all mostly in that posture. Why would accusing anyone of being a liberal antagonize them? I am often accused of being a liberal when I comment on issues such as legalizing drugs, equal [not special] rights for gays and free speech. I guess on those (and possibly other) issues I am a liberal. The distinction is that I am where I am on those issues because I have thought them out, not because I read an editorial in the NYT or I knee-jerked after reading an AP story about an issue. People who have not done their homework deserve to be called to account - for their own good - and claiming that I get off on pointing the finger at them for being typical liberal too-busy-to-have-done-their-homework-elitist-idiots is just recognizing the truth. So there.
Sorry, psycho, but thinking that a dedicated liberal in the CIA wouldn’t feed altered info to the Bush/Hitler administration (which stands in the way of the Euro/world liberal globalized environmentalist vegan ddt-free Kyoto protocol Greenpeace mix-and-match take-your-pick liberal agenda) is naive. Think American Communists providing nuclear information to the Soviet Union. Such people should be respected for the depth of their sincere dedication to principle - and hung. The point is that they have always existed and your poo-pooing is naive. If someone would pass "The Bomb" to the identified enemy, why would you find it ludicrous that someone would, in a far less stressful environment, attempt to influence government policy? I would complain about getting no respect, but since MK is still around the issue is mute.
I don’t find it ludicrous that people could attempt to influence policy, what I find ludicrous is the assertion that partisanship in the CIA is so strong that they would get away with it to the extent suggested. Sure they’d attempt it, just like anyone else with an all-encompassing view, but they would be caught.
People like the example you describe—rabid gung-ho MoveOn.org types who think they’re leading a crusade and would go as far as to screw with intel simply to embarass the president—should’ve been filtered out never to become agents in the first place. It doesn’t strike me as plausible that they’d have such clout anyway (just why would a bunch of rabid "progressives" join the CIA? That’d be like me working for the IRS), but clearly if they even hold an inch then someone screwed up big-time, I’d consider fixing that loophole to be top priority.
In the future, if you want people to respect you & your arguements, you shouldn’t whip out an accusatory tone so quick. My comment wasn’t even specifically directed at you anyway, rather it built up from seeing similar theories in a lot of other places. I’ve encountered snide remarks here before since on a couple things I disagree with the usual audience here, but never anything close to being accused of being a "liberal", that’s just low.
I don’t think liberals find it shameful to be called liberal. So that doesn’t work. Also, to attack one’s ideology rather than attack their idea’s... Now that’s shameful.
Stating that Plame worked at the CIA and was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger (which was also true) was necessary because administration critics were asking why a political hack like Wilson had been sent on such a sensitive mission.
Actually, this is NOT true, according to the indictment. The CIA sent Wilson. Now, perhaps his wife, an employee, made supervisor’s aware of her husbanc’s credentials, but SHE had no authority to send him anywhere. Someone(s) above her in the CIA sent him.
The other issue to contend with is WAS WILSON QUALIFIED for the task he was sent to do? I personally feel that he had an impressive background for this task.
FItz didn’t indict under the "outing a covert agent" charge because he couldn’t - everybody but the Kos kids admits that Plame wasn’t covert under the defintion of that statute.
Plame’s identity was classified TOP SECRET. Covert status is implied, by definition:
covert
adj 1: secret or hidden; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed; "covert actions by the CIA"; "covert funding for the rebels" [ant: overt]
It is also ironic that Plame-Wilson experise was in the area of WMDs.
Now, there has been a lot of talk about Clinton. That episode of USA history has been settled. Obviously, there is disagreement.
Now people who work with/around classified information must always be careful about how they discuss it. Even if people "know" classified information, confirming it is also a breach. When I worked with the DoD we were not supposed to tell people even the agency we worked with, or converse about any small detail of our work. Why?
Well, (this was the cold war era) spy’s are clever, and they will peice together tidbits of information to illuminate what they are really looking for. Confirming even a "known" can be dangerous in the big picture. They may not just be talking to YOU. If they get a bit here and a bit there, they have the whole secret.
Thus, when Plame was outed, she had a history with the agency as a covert operative. That activity can be backtracked, relationships re-evaluated ... it is a very dangerous thing.
(Coulter and Hannity (likely) have never been around a truly classified environment, and do not know the intricacy of how intelligence puzzles work.)
If Liddy were a GS-5 government employee with a Top Secret clearance, and not the VP Chf of Staff, many of these laid out defenses for Libby would be regarded as ridiculous.
Now people who work with/around classified information must always be careful about how they discuss it. Even if people "know" classified information, confirming it is also a breach. When I worked with the DoD we were not supposed to tell people even the agency we worked with, or converse about any small detail of our work. Why?
sdk - if that is the case, how does one justify coming back from said trip and writing an editorial in the NYT? If you should not even talk about your daily business with the people you work with, then isn’t it a but careless to write an op-ed when your wife is a ’covert’ agent?
Joe Wilson wrote the article. His WIFE was the [Top Secret Classified] CIA agent, and to my knowledge didn’t write anything with regard to the president’s decision’s and/or policies.
I do not know what documents, etc., Mr. Wilson had to sign for his trip, but apparently, he was able to write his article without peril. (CIA/Classified government employees cannot always do this.)
I never worked with/for the CIA. Nor have I been employed in an administration. So, I do not know what papers/agreements are signed by these folks. But, the indictment states that Libby signed some agreement.
As a young worker with the DoD, it was made clear to us that we needed to be careful about communicating about things related to our work. (We used to be shown special films on how [Soviet] spies worked individual’s to find information.)
Joe Wilson wrote the article. His WIFE was the [Top Secret Classified] CIA agent, and to my knowledge didn’t write anything with regard to the president’s decision’s and/or policies.
I do not know what documents, etc., Mr. Wilson had to sign for his trip, but apparently, he was able to write his article without peril. (CIA/Classified government employees cannot always do this.)
I never worked with/for the CIA. Nor have I been employed in an administration. So, I do not know what papers/agreements are signed by these folks. But, the indictment states that Libby signed some agreement.
As a young worker with the DoD, it was made clear to us that we needed to be careful about communicating about things related to our work. (We used to be shown special films on how [Soviet] spies worked individual’s to find information.)
Actually, this is NOT true, according to the indictment. The CIA sent Wilson. Now, perhaps his wife, an employee, made supervisor’s aware of her husbanc’s credentials, but SHE had no authority to send him anywhere. Someone(s) above her in the CIA sent him.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever alleged that Plame actually sent Wilson to Niger. What was said was words to the effect of, "I think his wife recommended him for the assignment."
The other issue to contend with is WAS WILSON QUALIFIED for the task he was sent to do? I personally feel that he had an impressive background for this task.
He might have had an impressive background, but he didn’t do a good job. According to his own account, his trip consisted largely of sitting around drinking green tea. And then he came back home and told two different stories of his trip.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country’s uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger’s uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there’s simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
He didn’t do a good job? He confirmed/completed his assignment.
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Where is the other story/conflict, could you please direct?
No. From the available evidence in the indictment, I’m of the opinion that Libby was at the very least noty "properly safeguard[ing] classified information against unauthorized disclosure". There may be more to it, but his talks with Miller and Cooper seem rather clear. Perhaps it was an accident, but even discussing her with un-vetted persons was still improper.
(mumble) See also, Ham Sandwich.(/mumble)
Jon; He’s got to be able to prove his case. THere’s no way based on what I’m reading in the indictment he’ll be able to do that.
Regardless of that outcome...Either way it goes, if all his investigation can come up with after two years of unlimited funding, and FBI agents as investigators.... is this, can we can officially call this investigation a failure?
I mean, look; Fitzgerald has been unable to prove that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated, (You may recall that’s what all this was SUPPOSED to be about...) Then I say the entire investigation is bogus... a sham.
Given his charges against Libby were generated as a part of that process, they should be considered equally bogus.
Obviously, getting information from journalists added time to the process. Also, lies have to be cross-checked.
If through the course of the trial, it is determined that Libby actually DID know the information was classified when he held discussions with journalists, then other charges can be sought against him.
There is still an issue of where and when, and by whom, the classified information was shared. Libby may have not known the information was classified. But, he should not have lied to the grand jury. Cheney may have accidently mentioned the information, but not qualified it. So, this would be carelessness, not necessarily a crime.
But, the point is, when people lie during an investigative, it consumes a lot of time and energy by introducing a bunch of new unknowns into the equation.
I think Libby will do some prison time. Eighty-five days? Who knows?
I don’t find it ludicrous that people could attempt to influence policy, what I find ludicrous is the assertion that partisanship in the CIA is so strong that they would get away with it to the extent suggested. Sure they’d attempt it, just like anyone else with an all-encompassing view, but they would be caught.
Not with people like you defending them with lines like "That’s just silly, you can do better".
You see, if you think on it, that’s exactly the charge I’m making. Your blithe dismissal strikes me as silly.
