Redstate

I am watching Fitzgerald's press conference and must say I am impressed by how he is managing the press.  The media smells bloood, wants Rove & Cheney, and Fitzgerald's consistent emphasis on his legal obligations to keep the privacy of any testimony not related to the indictments of Libby.  

Fitzgerald is living up to his reputation.

My concern is that because he is holding another grand jury open, this thing will drag and drag and drag, thus giving Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell and their merry band of MSNBC wannabe crime fighters more reason for absurd commentary that will harm the prez.

Don't worry,

If there is nothing there he won't find anything.

What is more important- that those who put their lives on the line as undercover agents never get outed or that President Bush is protected against all comers.

Remember principles are more important than party.

WHERE IS OUR WATERGATE?!?!?!  GIVE US SOMETHING WE CAN IMPEACH BUSH WITH!!!  WE CAN'T STAND THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED AND BUSH NEVER WILL BE!  WHY IS THERE NEVER ANY SUBSTANTIVE SCANDAL OUT OF THIS WHITE HOUSE?!  DAAAARRRRGGG!

Sincerely,

The Main Stream Media

I am all for charging whomever lied under oath, misled, etc...

I just want it to get over with.

Allison was right - this has been a banner day for Pointy Sticks™.

It appears that after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald does not agree with the administration's critics that her situation is what this is all about."

Fitzgerald has been very clear about the fact that the indictment is one step in getting closer to the truth. Whether that truth is that someone committed a crime or not, he's not saying, but it's clear they cannot determine that with Libby lying before the Grand Jury, as they're asserting he did.

This is clearly going to be an ongoing problem for the Administration.  So many administration officials are named either by title or by name in the indictments today that the fires of speculation already burning brightly will now continue to grow.

I think there will be more indictments in the next few weeks and months.  At least the myth of her covert status has been settled, how much her neighbors knew about her CIA employment has been established and the seriousness of perjury and obstruction has been re-asserted.  Looks like new talking points will have to be written for Fox News.

about this. Fitzgerald is making this out to be pretty serious. Another GJ is going to impaneled.

"It appears that after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald does not agree with the administration's critics that her situation is what this is all about."

In fact, Fitzgerald specifically said that they knew Plame's identity as a CIA agent was "classified" and that that information was not known to her friends and neighbors (contrary to Republican talking points). Fitzgerald concluded that classified information about Plame had been released by Libby. He gave a great analogy about baseball to demonstrate how when someone like Libby obstructs and throws "sand in the eyes" of the ump, that it is difficult to establish the intent of the initial act and therefore they did not have the evidence to prove he intentionally disclosed her classified status. But they did conclude that he lied about his involvement in doing so on a number of occasions.

Not on any level does that suggest or imply that Fitzgerald disagrees with people that say the Plame leak is what this is all about.

And I say this with the utmost respect for both the Vice President and Congressman Kingston (whom I consider an excellent conservative congressman), and all the other posters here:

It's significant that the indictment does not mention the outing of Valerie Plame.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

As I read page 3 and pages 6-8, a good deal of the evidence regarding Count I deals explicitly with the "outing" of Valerie Plame.  I'll concede that Mr. Fitzgerald has given up (at least with this grand jury) on securing an indictment under the Espionage Act or Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- which is significant -- but it does seem that there will be put on at trial a fair amount of evidence about the "outing" of Valerie Plame.  Assuming a trial ever occurs, that is.

Just because certain people knew this stuff, as long as they didn't lie about knowing it to a grand jury or knowingly tell reporters about it, then Fitzgerald can mention people in his indictment until he's blue in the face.

I agree that this thing will drag on... However, don't jump to conclusions because Daily Kos tells you to.   You might not believe it from watching your heroes like Chris and Keith on MSNBC, but it's not illegal for admin officials to know classified info.  What they did with it is what matters...

They can "grand jury" all they want.  This case has so many holes in it its not even funny.  Besides, the media can get hyped about this all they want...they didn't get Rove or Cheney.  They are livid.  Mark my words.  This is not how this was "supposed to go."

If this is the best Mr. Fitzgerald has to offer I would say this investigation has been a complete waste of taxpayer money. That being said, I hope the other Republicans involved have nothing else to hide. I guess we will find out in a week or two. Up to this point I have no reason to believe Mr. Fitzgerald is on a fishing expedition. I do believe Libby will eventually plea bargain these charges down to misdemeanors or stike another similar plea agreement for his misstatements.

and I don't mean Judy Garland.  However when the Star was asked about the damage caused "one of the most beautiful women in Washington" he uttered some blather about how when we send agents out to gather intelligence and serve our country they deserve anonymity.  How does that square with CIA "agents" embroiling themselves in national politics?  I'll stand correction on this if appropriate but at least on this answer he didn't assert she was a covered agent.  Anybody else hear otherwise?  Put me out of my misery!

But is anyone more concerned about the larger picture?  That the longer this goes, the more license is given to Fitgerald to fish around.  

While I don't believe there's anything more with which to implicate the administration, I'm not naive enough to believe this entree won't be used to dredge up anything they believe to be incriminating or damning.    

It's in the indictment, but as pointed out above, it would have been completely appropriate for Libby and others in the administration to discuss Ms. Plame and her position among themselves.

The crime is to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent.  As others have previous state -- and correctly -- Libby was not indicted on this charge.

My interpretation of remarks that he made in his press appearance is that he could not charge Libby with this crime, because he believes that Libby lied generally during his testimony and this makes the whole circumstance unclear.

So, not enough evidence to charge Libby, but enough to establish that he lied to the grand jury?

Watching the press conference now. He seems extremely smart, driven, and straight as an arrow, just like that other famous Chicago lawman. It's good to see people who are driven only by their duty to the law, and not partisanship. Libby will be tried, and the investigation will continue until Fitgerald is satisfied that he's gotten to the truth of the matter.

I didn't have to interpret what he said. He said that they were not charging anyone with leaking anything, but that lying to a grand jury in an investigation of leaks necessarily clouds the issue of whether or not there were any leaks.

That's nothing more or less than logical.

Fitz went out of his way to make clear that no one should draw any conclusions one way or the other as to the guilt or innocence of anyone else, and no one should draw any conclusions one way or the other about whether or not there was any leak at all.

Congressman Kingston is not the spinner here. It's the left scrambling to pull their "Fitzmas" out of their own ......

They are the spinners. The press conference could not have been clearer.

It's significant that the indictment does not mention the outing of Valerie Plame.

Kingston didn't read it all or missed the press conference.

Look.  Spinning is not the solution.  Spinning is the problem.  The real disaster here is that it's ongoing.  If it had all come out at once, we could throw them under the bus and move on and a year from now it would only be a bad memory.

A lot of DEmocrats regret having supported Clinton at the time and think they'd have done better to force his resignation and move on.  We ought to think about that.

I think it is also a mistake to trivialize this matter, which amounts to treason in the everyday definition of betraying one's country.  And I think defending that is, shall we say, suboptimal.  Associating Conservatives and the Conservative movement with treason in the public mind doesn't seem to me like a very positive PR strategy.

Best way to handle this is ".... condemn Libby's actions if charges turn out to be true"

this is turning into a Hugh scandal for the Bush White House.

For being much more concise than me.

That there was a leak and CIA officer's cover was blown.  So that should put to sleep the RNC talking point that it was legal to leak Valerie Plames CIA status.

Not illegal to know, BUT ILLEGAL TO TELL reporters.  Do republicans really not understand the concept of undercover CIA agents?

Your partisan comments (with misspellings) don't seem to be swaying anybody.  Care to review all of your predictions of what crime indictments will come down on?  Don't see anything here regarding Espionage  or Identities Protection.  Looks like it was a witch hunt all along...

To be rebroadcast at 8pm tonight on C-Span, both the Fitzgerald press conference and the President's speech (which is just starting.)  So everyone will get a chance to redigest it all again.  Just FYI.

Fitzgerald sending out the FBI, THIS WEEK, to talk to neighbors, and then using that in his press conference as an establishment that her secret identity as an international spy was safe, SITINKS, and it stinks to high heaven.  It is clear that they were never really looking into the alleged crime that caused the investigation, but were rather giving Libby enough rope to hang himself, which it appears he may have.  How many times has that been the end result of government scandal in our history?

I for one do not think he is so straight arrow, or he would acknowledge more than that his inability to prove the crime that started this investigation is because the statute is vague.  Maybe I was hearing a different press conference, but I heard him clearly say that because Libby was not forthcoming with the truth he could not establish his case with respect to outing a spy.  After two years he has blamed everything on Libby for lying.  I find it difficult to imagine that a two year investigation rests on Libby's testimony alone, but that is exactly what he said.    

I have to laugh though.  This case reminds me of hockey.  The original penalty is almost never seen by the Refs, but you can be sure that he'll see the retaliation.  

Wilson is more like a theatrical, French soccer player tumbling across the field and holding his leg after another player brushes him.      

Why didn't Scooter just take the 5th and resign ?  I  doubt that he could have been charged if he didn't testify.  

... is what night "The Apprentice: Scooter" will be on in two years, and will it like "The Apprentice: Martha" be said to take away from the ratings of The Donald's version. Oh, and what will his firing catch phrase be? The fate of the Republic is in the hands of skillful TV producers.

congressman kingston is the spinner here..he said

"It's significant that the indictment does not mention the outing of Valerie Plame. It appears that after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald does not agree with the administration's critics that her situation is what this is all about."

When Fitz made it clear, that this is what he is still investigationg.

i don't watch MSNBC.  As much as you would like to lump people into only two groups, it just doesn't work that simply.

even reporters who kinda sorta but don't really have security clearances.

I know that you guys hate trolls and mobys (mobies? I'm not sure how to pluralize that) so I will just say up front that I am from the other side of the aisle but read this site for its generally intelligent debate. However, I find it extremely below the intellectual caliber of Redstate to suggest that perjury, obstruction and making false statements are benign because there was no charge for the leak. It is not certain that there will be no charges for the leak and Libby could be looking at a maximum of 30 years in prison. He won't serve 30 but if he fights this and loses he is going to prison for a very long time. You all know that perjury is a crime. You can do 5 years in jail. Obstruction is a serious crime, 10 years of your life wasted away in jail. Don't debase yourself by pretending that these charges are no big deal. Whether the charges merit a sentence is for a jury to decide.

and lost badly so far.

It's not what the indictment is all about. You know, the indictment. The thing we're all talking about? It's about perjury and obstruction. You know, lying?

He couldn't have been more clear. Seems it is zee2 who wants to spin.

He is not going after a huge number of people. He is keeping the investigation open i case new information comes to him.  

Your press release has precisely the right substance and tone, Congressman.  Thanks.

On a different topic: Fitzgerald's admirable conduct during his press conference, and the detail and seriousness of the charges in his indictment against Libby, put the lie to the claim that Fitzgerald is some sort of ax-grinding witch hunter.  Hannity (et al.) owe him an apology.  

Regardless of his NYT editorial today, Hugh will support the next nominee.

PS - Doesn't your comment belong in one of the SCOTUS/Miers diaries?

When people like zee2 keep trying to say this proves something it doesn't, saying that it doesn't prove those things isn't the same as saying this is benign.

I'm pretty sure that many people here have been saying all along that these are serious charges, and serious offenses. Explicitly and repeatedly.

Trying to imply that we're all pretending the charges are no big deal is simply false. But them being a big deal still doesn't mean anyone is guilty of outing anyone or treason. However much your "other side" may wish it did.

Face it. Fitzmas is a bust.

and a bit of advice in return.

Post here as frequently as you wish but don't tell us we're "debasing" ourselves. Disagree if you wish, but don't characterize the disagreement with the quality of the indictment as "debased."

There is no evidence as to Super Secret Agent Girls actual status.  And for good reason.  Do your homework and see if there is anyway you can satisfy the two laws in question.  You can't.  Now releasing classified information itself is not necessarily a crime, but you would certainly loose your security clearance, and depending on the information could be complicit concerning other laws.  Its not a gray area either, the statutes are very clear on the necessary conditions for use.  So we are back to the obvious.  Its a witch hunt.

And I half agree and half disagree.

As for the disagreement - the charges are very serious,and the defense will be fascinating to watch, but we have a very recent example of a perjury conviction which resulted in zero prison time and apparently not much stigma. That said, what exactly is sufficient punishment to discourage such behavior? As the prosecutor alluded, should a truck driver in Chicago receive a different punishment than a high official? Should the differing defenses matter?

Which brings me to the half agree:

In a perhaps bass-ackward way, I hope the prosecutor still pursues the leak charge, or clears out quickly so congress can do so. In essence, it seems primarily a political battle since the administration and the Wilsons' were reduced to using classified info attempting to discredit one another. To the extent either side breached or misused classified info to do so, there should be charges, and if not, a robust debate on who, why, what, and where the facts lead.

The key moment from the press conference was when Fitzgerald said, quite clearly, that charges related to the leak would require "knowledge that the information was classified" and thus would be "harder to prove."

Now ordinarily, if you're going to prosecute someone anyway, you don't automatically refuse to bring more serious charges just because they're harder to prove.  You charge Libby with everything, and if there turns out to be reasonable doubt considering whether he knew the information was classified, you still have him dead to rights on the perjury and obstruction counts.

But this didn't happen.  The most likely reason is that Fitzgerald is bringing only the most obvious, slam-dunk charges in an attempt to get Libby to flip.  From the fact that the investigation remains open, it's clear that he hopes to fry bigger fish.  And from the fact that Libby's allegedly false statements were designed to cover up, among other things, the fact that Cheney told him the information, that gives Fitzgerald incentive to try and move up the food chain.

As I noted elsewhere, it took Fitzgerald two years of indicting flunkies in Illinois before he finally was able to get enough to indict Governor Ryan.  That's the way it plays out sometimes.  From the sound of the press conference, Fitzgerald has collected about all the evidence that there is to collect, unless and until someone flips.

Most people seem to agree that Fitzgerald seems like a straight shooter, a guy who takes his job seriously.  The fact that he has resisted Democratic requests to issue a final report in the manner of the lurid Starr Report shows that he's out to prosecute illegal activity, not to embarass people.  And if he were to announce next week that there's no more charges and the investigation is all over, I'd be content that justice had been served.

to make up a whole pod. Do us a favor and go beach yourselves on Kos Island.

Tired of being lied to and spun.  This indictment is alleging serious stuff and it's being blown off with statements that are flat out false.  This looks, and may very well be extremly damaging, but we should not be lying to ourselves about it.

If it really was a witch hunt, and the adminstration has nothing to hide, then why did Libby lie to the Grand Jury?  Are we suppose to believe that Libby is a recreational liar, and just lies because he enjoys it?

Libby is a Lawyer, and certainly knows to tell the truth to a Grand Jury, what is your explanation for why Libby lied?

Why it wasn't a key moment when Fitzgerald said, quite clearly, that getting a new GJ was routine in these situations, and that he didn't want anyone to draw any conclusions from the fact that they were doing so.

It seems strange to ignore that comment in favor of the "harder to prove" one, being that the statement I am quoting is far less ambiguous.

A moby is a lib who pretends to be conservative. Like our own redstatty. If they state they are liberal or democrat, they can't be a moby.

Just for clarification.

You are absolutely right, and as has been pointed out, many here have expressed that.  I just wonder where you were when Slick Willie was lying under oath and it was just a blow-job and no big deal.  He didn't get hit with half the criminal charges of Libby.  Your indignation don't hunt.      

However, we all have seen this as a case study in the difference between politics and reality.  Wilson lied repeatedly, and his wife orchestrated his calculated political attacks from the belly of the CIA.  Most of the MSM is still disregarding the fact that Wilson is a proven liar even when exposed in a Senate investigation.  Most of the MSM ignores that it is an established fact that Plame was instrumental in getting the assignment that allowed Wilson to create his web of lies.  Libby foolishly retaliated for it, and he has ended up indicted and under criminal charges.  Wilson's lies have been the central fodder for the radical left in abetting the "Bush lied" mantra.  The radical left was heavily invested in a proven liar doing massive damage to this administration, and at least for now that does not seem to have come to pass.  Politics is not the same thing as reality or criminal charges, though it seems this generation of Democrats is hell bent to make it so.  It will backfire in a huge and unpleasant way.  

Fitsmas!  You're killin' me!    

I never called today Fitzmas. You accuse me of generalizing about people on the site, yet you proceed to generalize about me. I am here to engage in a debate, not to challenge your values system. Please show me a little respect for coming into the lion's den, so to speak, and engage you honestly, without trying to hide what I believe.

from the indictment:

"On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

Counterproliferation Division. Look this up please.

He was very up-front about the fact that a continuing investigation doesn't mean there will be any more indictments whatsoever.

I do think you have to read the tea leaves, however, and at least consider why additional charges might not be brought if he truly thinks this will be the only guy he prosecutes.  There are, of course, alternative explanations to the one I deem most likely.

I think Fitzgerald is professional to a fault and he's simply not going to rattle sabers or drop hints about how there might be a Fitzmas in July.  Which is as it should be.

Did you hear the press conference????????????

Fitzgerald basically debunk every republican talking point, one by one.  He made it clear that something bad happenend and it STILL needs to be investigated.

If you can't understand that...then I dont know what to say.

If I were being vitriolic you'd know it. You implied everyone here was "debasing" themselves. It's simply not true, as even the slightest perusal of the day's activity would certainly inform you. You may have engaged honestly, but you certainly didn't engage fully up to speed. I'm merely bringing you up to speed.

I wonder what your point was?

that working in the Counterproliferation Division makes your identity secret?

zee, pick a topic and go with it bud.

And don't be ridiculous enough to suggest that the liberal reports throwing out their alleged "republican talking points" represents anything more than, well, reporters throwing out alleged talking points.

He specifically said not to draw the exact conclusion you are drawing.

You either listen to the words, or you don't zee. I can't help you if you don't.

If anyone else was involved, taking the fifth can be dangerous.  If Fitzgerald believed someone else was involved, he could give Scooter immunity for some set of charges, taking away the self-incrimination defense.

Maybe Scooter just got caught, or maybe he's taking one to protect someone else, especially if he's expecting a pardon this could be a much safer route.

correct, it is an alleged not proven.

But my intuition is that Fitzgerald is such a compentent prosecutor that he wouldn't bring this indictments unless he was absolutely sure he could prove them.

Of all the criticism you've taken (which I agree with some of it) this note is a good summary, especially about the prosecutor's tactics in the Chicago trials.

One question or comment here though - I don't think he's trying to "flip" Libby in the common understanding of the term. Among other things - Libby seems to be the last and toughest character to try that with, and too high up the chain. I think these indictments are first since they are the clearest available.

To the extent the inquiry remains open, others (but probably not Rove) lower down the chain are probably concerned, and to the extent there is any remaining chance of extracting evidence there, that is what the prosecutor may be looking to shake loose.

Finally, I wonder what is going on with Director Goss and the CIA and their procedures. I don't know if the Prosecutor will go there, since it may be easier to leave that as a management mess needing a management solution.

Maybe, but not against the big guy.

I think that Wilson and friends, and some media types may have some 'splainin' to do.

and your points are extremely good.

I enjoy thinking these things through but at the end of the day I'm more of a "wait and see" guy than anything else.  I don't see a reason to spin when the legal process is going to have an outcome all on its own.

If Libby is protecting Wilson, I'd categorize that as extremely gentlemanly of him.

Now that was funny!

He's a capable, competent, relatively young individual who is quite talented at playing the press. Everyone, partisan or not, has described him as "a straightahead guy." Steph even said he should be played by Tom Hanks in the movie version.

But I think I was seeing one of two things:

1. having no found no basis on which to charge anyone of a crime in regard to the disclosure of Plame's status, he panicked and realized he had to come up with something (lying, obstruction, perjury), or else
   
   
2. he's a real Kool-aid drinker.

On the Plame-related issues, he took pains to clarify that no violation of the Agent Identity statute took place. Many people have described how hard this statute actually is to violate. Fitz did say at one point that an inadvertent outing may indeed have taken place, although he would neither confirm nor deny, but he stressed that this doesn't rise to the level of a statutory violation. Needless to say, everyone in the press and the Left has taken this to mean that a deliberate outing took place even if there was no indictment for it. That's life, partisans on both sides will spin it in their favor.

However, Fitz did say over and over and over that lying to law enforcement agents, grand juries and/or prosecutors is a BAD THING(tm). And he found just enough evidence of this to indict for it. He also said very passionately that he and everyone in his line of work prosecutes for perjury constantly, because they face it constantly. (He didn't say anything about how many actual convictions he gets for perjury and obstruction.) I got an impression of a guy who is personally offended by the fact that people sometimes lie (inadvertently or not), and sees his role in life as cleaning up the cesspools. Now the MSM, which sees itself in a very similar role, just loved his assertion that lying is all the more important to root out and punish when perpetrated by the powerful.

Perjury, obstruction and lying are very serious charges, and Scooter deserves some jail time if he is convicted. But do they rise, in this particular case, to a threat to national security, our political life, and all the rest of it? Please, don't make me laugh! And in case you're wondering, I don't think Martha deserved to go to jail either.

Another thing: Fitz very mysteriously but repeatedly stressed that damage to national security had been done. He acknowledged that this might have happened inadvertently. That's not enough to indict and try anyone in a court of law, but the court of public opinion is a very different place.

I think Fitz either realized he had to come up with something no matter how trivial to justify all his effort, or else he thinks he's Elliott Ness. Not sure which it is. I'm inclined to the former.

He's falling on his sword for the VP, but he might be very interested in talking about what he knows about Wilson, but Fitzgerald is the one asking questions.

Will Fitzgerald go there? More speculation. It seems likely to me that Fitzgerald must at least have caught whiff of a problem at CIA.

... is found to be protecting Wilson I will eat my keyboard.  Maybe not in one sitting, but I'll eat it nonetheless.  You heard it here first.

I was not suggesting that all people on this site were debasingthemselves by saying that perjury was not a crime. I was simply saying that to do so, you make yourself sound ridiculous. This is one of the comments I was referring to which to me seem to minimize the gravity of perjury:

"If there is no alleged crime concerning the disclosure of an undercover agent, and it is doubtful that there will be or it would certainly be alleged by now, then Bush should immediately pardon Libby." posted by Tbone earlier

My point was that if you pretend that perjury is no big deal because your guy does it, it makes you sound stupid.(by the way, "debase" was the wrong word to use, by debase I simply meant it makes your argument sound ridiculous. I apologize if it offended anyone.)

Since it relies solely on the recollections of THREE reporters, Matt Cooper of Time (married to a political opponent of Libby); Tim Russert of NBC; and Judy Miller. The latter of whom was accussed by Maureen Dowd on TV of having a pattern of affairs with powerful men who gave her access to stories.

Any competent Defense Attorney could devastate these witnesses on cross; particularly if the reporters socialize and are active with Democrats. Goes to credibility of testimony.

Martha Stewart was convicted of perjury by the testimony of her assistant and broker, with supporting physical evidence (altered diary entries, phone logs, etc). I don't see anything so far other than he-said she-sad.

Seriously, Matt Cooper of Time? Married to Hillary's top staffer? You'll put HIM on the Witness stand (it's a guarantee that the Defense Attorney will).

at Fitzgeralds prosecution history. He doesn't make indictments unless he has a pretty airtight case. Anyhow, after Libby is convicted he can be brought back before the Grand Jury and will have to tell the truth.

Fitzgerald seems to be pretty patient. It might take him a while but he usually gets to the bottom of something.

I fully expect Libby to plead or cut a deal.

and, zee, please go back to dkos

Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). 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.

Of course, the actual truth of that assertion, Scooter's knowledge of that status (if true), and his disclosure of that status (if true) are separate matters.

I'm pointing out that you make the case that we "all" are over here doing this. Furthermore, you came just short of making it sound like it was the Redstate.org official position.

"However, I find it extremely below the intellectual caliber of Redstate to suggest that perjury, obstruction and making false statements are benign because there was no charge for the leak."

I'm pointing out that this is a debated issue here, not a settled one. Coming in tsk-tsking us like we're children behaving badly should at least wait until the matter is settled and there's a position to tsk at, no?

is that we really are terribly interested in what your view is of how we look. We might be able to care less but I'd be hard pressed to think of how that would be possible.

Perjury is obviously a serious matter for Libby because even if he is exonerated -- and if this indictment is all there is I believe he will be -- he's in the Ray Donovan position, how does he get his good name back.

If there is no indictment on the charge that started the investigation, or a lot more indictments, then I think this is a prosecutor who indicted a man because he could and for no other reason.

He comments on her employment status (notionally classified) and her affiliation.

Two entirely different things.

We know that a CIA press officer confirmed her employment status to Robert Novak.

So it is really very easy to have knowledge of her affiliation, disclose her affiliation, but not know her employment status.

I think the Starr investigation racked up around $25 million in tax payer money.  The Fitzgerald investigation has around $700,000 in tax payer money.

For another $700,000 I would really like to know what Scooter lied about.  We all just want to know the truth.

In fact, Fitzgerald specifically said that they knew Plame's identity as a CIA agent was "classified"

He said HE (Fitzgerald) KNEW, after checking with the CIA during his investigation that her status was a secret. Remember his baseball pitcher analogy? If Fitzgerald knew for a fact that Libby or Rove knew (at the time of the calls,) he would have indicted them for knowingly leaking the name of a covert agent. That's the problem. He can't say that they knew she was covert, and not just one of the hundreds of CIA desk jockeys that are no more secret than George Tenet or Porter Goss.

is the part of the CIA where the spies are - not the analysts. Scooter has been around long enough and worked in the capacity to know this.

How should we respond to this though?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006881.php

Here's an interesting snip from TNR, 2003:

"Shortly after publication on or about June 19, 2003, of an article in The New Republic Magazine online entitled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War," Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."

Whether or not anyone is charged under IIPA here in the future, I for one find it hard to believe Libby was as naive about the implications of revealing Plame's name as his defenders would have us believe.

but the structure of your argument requires it.

Was Bill Clinton's perjury in the Lewinsky case a big deal? Just want to hear your opinion.

Where can I go to find the list of the official republican talking points? There seem to be a lot of them.

How are your two statements reconcilable?

The Cong'mn's statement said (paraphrasing) "it is significant that there isn't anything about Valerie Plame."

Fitz's press conference said (paraphrasing) "make no mistake, this is serious #$@& and the charges -- perjury, obstruction, etc. rendered it impossible to evaluate the underlying 'subtsantive' charge."

I'm not sure how you can applaud both.

If found guilty on all counts, Libby faces 30 years in prison.  He won't get a misdemeanor plea bargain unless he rolls overs and testifies to a conspiracy.

That that's the defense strategy, and that Fitzgerald doesn't have evidence that will flatly contradict that and prove the charges.  Because if he can, it looks to me from reading every word of this indictment carefully that Libby is toast on at least the perjury charges, if Fitz has good evidence.  

If you read the indictment carefully, Libby learned from several sources that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA prior to any discussions he had with reporters:  the Undersecretary of State, a CIA briefer, and the Vice President.  To wit:

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

...

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

...

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. (†) LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

...

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.

So it seems that Fitzgerald has evidence to establish that Libby knew that Plame worked at CIA.  OK as far as that goes.  But: notice that nowhere in the indictment does it explicitly claim that Libby knew, and knowingly disclosed, that Valerie Wilson's position at the CIA was classified -- the indictment says that he knew that she worked there, but it does not say that he knew that was classified information and knowingly disclosed it as such.  

The indictment only talks about false statements that Libby made to the Grand Jury concerning who said what to whom -- and on that score, it guess it depends on how effective Libby's defense attorneys are at discrediting the witnesses against him and contradicting whatever evidence Fitzgerald has been able to amass.

That's my reading so far, at least.  Am I pretty much on track here?  Or am I hopelessly hairsplitting the distinction between knowing that she worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division and knowing that her status was classified?

(†) - Emphasis mine, and I ask this because people on Kos are claiming the following:  If Libby learned from Cheney that she worked at CIA in the Counterproliferation Division, that automatically means that Libby should have realized her status was classified and therefore should never have been discussed with anyone who didn't have a security clearance.  Is that true, or is it just an academic point that Fitzgerald doesn't have the evidence to prove, and therefore he's bringing the obstruction, perjury and false statements charges???

And furthermore, are we all really to believe that "people at the State Department" knew her information and weren't leaking it as well?  Are we really to believe that everyone else was keeping mum and Libby was the only one who blabbed (assuming he's found guilty of blabbing.)???  The entire thing is just so incredibly surreal.  God, I wish Scooter had never talked to any of these people and just gone on vacation to Bermuda.

Did you listen to the first few introductory paragraphs? It was all about protecting Mrs. Wilson and all other "classified" employees of the CIA and related agencies. Seems to be that's exactly the starting point for the whole investigation.

Now, it wandered off a little bit, but it can easily come back if and when anything further comes out as evidence, or if plea negotiations for others are presently underway and undisclosed.

If neither of those occur, and Libby goes to trial, and vigorously defends himself, then we're left with an enormous CIA management mess. We still have that, but there seems to be little media focus on that for now.

Your question misses the point. Its not whether Clinton's perjury was serious. Its whether its important given that the IC was charged to look into the Whitewater land deal.

It includes snippets of the testimony Libby gave the Grand Jury for counts four and five.  Allow me, please, to paraphrase for brevity.

"Q: So you told the reporters that you'd heard it from other reporters?  Why?

A: Yes, I did.  Because that's what happened - I didn't know anything about Wilson or his wife, or that she worked at the CIA, or any of the rest of it till the reporters started talking to me."  (again, that's paraphrase)

Against this is the various documentation and testimony identified within the first 30 paragraphs of the indictment that contradict that claim.  The claims of the three reporters are only a few of those 30 paragraphs.

We don't yet know what (if anything) Libby will present in his defense, but assuming all the material of the indictment is accurate then even excluding the testimony of the three reporters Libby's facing a serious hurdle to raise doubt in the jury's collective mind.

TheLorax said: "My point was that if you pretend that perjury is no big deal because your guy does it, it makes you sound stupid."

I've heard confusing statements about this from the Left. On the one hand, people will say that Libby's alleged lying is more serious than Clinton's because  the underlying violation of law is more serious. But this invites the question, what if there was no underlying violation of law? (Which we now know to be true as Fitzgerald declined to indict.)

So then the Lefty backtracks and tells you that any perjury is incredibly serious.

Now I've seen Monica Lewinsky and I can tell you that the most serious thing Bill Clinton was guilty of is abominable taste. But I still would like to know if, in light of this, TheLorax considers Clinton's perjury not a big deal.

Someone asked this earlier and I think it relates to the "Flipping" point.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if he could have avoided the grand jury. But if he could have, and instead knowingly perjured himself because he did not want to give the administration a black eye prior to the election, there's no way he'll flip on anybody.

based on a never-wuzzer bunch of junk.

Valerie was not covered by NOC. Releasing her name, after hubbie wilson decided to play treachery from a statesman pose put her in play.

Can't have it both ways, especially when you are an aging dope smoking lefty bureaucrat like wilson.

Fitzgerald was very impressive, and seemed genuinely non-partisan, faithfully acting in the best interests of the Republic.  To attack Fitz would be folly... it would only serve to keep the issue in the forefront. Tme to move beyond Libby, and get him out of the news cycle.  Also, the argument that perjury should not have been brought and is just a technicality is absurd, and even kooky. Bush and Republicans should strive to be "Presidential", capable leaders, with a focus on governance, not partisanship.

are predicated on the idea that they know what actually happened.

Since they do, if there was a crime, they would have charged that along with the Libby charges.

All they have is junk, and fitz may be GJ shopping because the current GJ that has looked into this declined to indict.

As Earle demonstrates in Texas so well, a prsecutor can be very persistent if he is dedicated to ginnin' up charges.

I would ask the question if I was on a criminal jury hearing the charges as outlined if the lies and obstruction were anywhere nearly significant enough to bring heavy criinal charges.

I think the jury would ahve to think about it for quite awhile, and would need a lot more than what is showing so far to come in with a verdict of guilty.

forgeting Fitzgerald is still trying to indict someone for leaking Ms. Plames identity.

one thing, that being the definition of a covert agent. Evidently, if your neighbors know you work for the CIA, you can't be a covert agent. I wish he would have told us if here hairdresser knew for sure.

Because I dont see them.

Remember, this is about perjury. And it seems that, at least according to Fitz, Libby was less than truthful to the FBI and the Grand Jury.

...in your dreams.

in the press conferences he literally said..Plames neighbors did not know she worked for the CIA. so her status was in fact a secret.

Your question presupposes that if, upon further investigation, some violation of law is uncovered and actually indicted, that Libby's indictment for perjury suddenly becomes more serious.

Are you saying that the perjury indictment is serious because you yourself know in your heart of hearts that violations of law will actually be discovered on some happy day in the future?

Or do you take Fitzgerald at his word that any alleged perjury by a powerful individual must be dealt with severely?

If you think the former, then you have a basic quarrel with Fitzgerald. If the latter, then you agree that the Republicans were justified in impeaching Clinton.

This is a pretty simple question, but you might yet come back with a clever snark. If you do, it won't be that hard to figure out the real answer.

I tried to post a moment ago but it didn't work. I think Clinton's perjury was a big deal. Just because I am on the left doesn't mean I loved Clinton. In fact I thought he was dishonest and fake. Left does not mean Clintonite.

As per my first, it still does not satisfy IIPA.

we're still talking about perjury, obstruction and false statements, right? There is no indictment for any action that resulted in the disclosure of Plame's status.

I appreciate the consistency. That's all I was going for.

I agree.  And that would be the middle ground leading one to loose their job and security clearance.  But you could be the blackest of black operatives, super duper secret under multiple unofficial cover, and not be covered under the Espionage or IPA.  And our gal Val is not even close to that.

Hence again ---  WITCH HUNT!!!!

Apparently he was aware of the classified nature of the information.  And leaking that classified information can be harmful to your health.  But not illegal according to Fitzgerald.  Although he sure sounded upset that he couldn't get Scoot for it.  And mentioned a couple of times how bad exposing a classified agents name was.  Prove it!  He's a hack and its a witch hunt.

Dateline 12:46 HST

"Hugh calls for investigation into leak of speeches and memos leading to the removal of Supreme Court Nomination, suspects Karl Rove may be involved."

Breaking News  ---  Update Coming

Yeah, groovy, I dig it.

The Inflamitory: Joseph Wilson Sparks Up on the Left Coast

Scooter is a democrat. He and Tenet were holdovers from the Clinton administration. IF he lied, it was probably sheer reflex.  

I will go another 700 g's to know who hatched the political hit campaign and sent the unqualified bungling retired ambassador Joe on his mint tea vacation.  

Do you want us to get the 10 million dollar Cisneros report that is sitting on a judges desk?  Eh?

Safeguarding classified information is critical to our national security. A few high-profile investigations can serve to deter bad conduct.

It's too bad Sandy Burglar did not get worse.

"Argh, Captain. Trying to kill the beast will be the end of you"

...that there AREN'T Republican talking points...? Such things are common across all politicians -- Dems, Reps, and others. The Reps have just made better use of them over the past years, although those points seem to be falling apart somewhat these days. It's not a construction of the alleged "liberal" media.

Seriously, so what?  If you listened to Mr. Fitzgerald he didn't say "there was no uncovering", he said it was "difficult to prove". (note - paraphrasing).  Choosing to go for the certain thing is not necessarily a bad decision.

Further, the end of the day is not the end of the investigation.  The investigation is continuing - so sayeth Mr. Fitzgerald.

Now it's possible there will be nothing more forthcoming.  And it's possible that there'll be indictments galore against almost the entire administration for every felony the moonbats have ever dreamed of seeing.  My guess (and it's only a guess) is that there will be some more folk charged with a few things.  My bias is that we'll see a charge or two related to the original crime.  

Returning to the original title line, I will reference Watergate (lo so many years ago).  Specifically, of all the President's men, how many were actually charged for what we'd now consider the "root crimes", and how many were "only" charged for crimes related to covering up the entire mess?

got indicted.

People are just trying to engage in honest debate. Lighten up.

...for all of the established facts you stated in your message? That's actually a legit question, not a dig, because I'd be interested in reading about that.

...and others are reading a little too much into TheLorax's message. The person was just trying to engage in discussion, not to attack anyone.

I was previously under the impression that Goss was not meeting with much success.  For a couple of reasons,  Tenet has a special get out of jail free card.  He got it for taking the hit.  I suspect that is a hindrance.  And intelligence reporting and analysis seemed to indicate Goss as being holed up in the castle, drawbridge up and moat filled.

But now I am questioning that view.  Loyalty is one of the serious requirements of successful units in intelligence.  And the administration may have calculated that a drag out fight with CIA bureaucrats was more destructive than it would be worth.  It may be the case that they are working methodically to reform our foreign intelligence service.  Or at least they think thats the case.  

Oh no, I think I have slipped into a parallel universe where government works for the people, help me......

crime. He said he could not prove it. Libby pissed Fitzpatrick off by lying to him.

Is this a forum for discussion, or an echo chamber where differences of opinion can be expressed?

Someone revealed the identify of an undercover CIA agent.

Libby (apparently) obstructed the investigation.

Let's get outside of the beltway for just a few minutes or why the average American holds their government and the press in such low regard.

If the poll numbers are to be believed the executive, legislative and judicial branches are competing to see who can have the lowest approval numbers among the public. And the press is even lower.

So, let me tell you a story. There was a big guy and he needed to get some information verified about a bad guy on the next block. So he tells this girl who knows a lot about bad guys to check it out. The girl has a worthless boyfriend who she claims knows a lot about the other block and the bad guys over there. So the big guy sends the boyfriend to checks it out. And everybody pinkie swears that she and the plan will be a secret.

And he goes and finds out but he weasels and tells lots of different stories, too lots of different people. So the big guy and fiends get pissed and "dises" on the girl.

Unfortunately the girl has friends with other big guys on the block and they get pissed. So they're going to teach our big guy a lesson. The get together and find out who broke the pinkie swear. There was some kid's little brother at the original get together and they find out he squealed. So, now he's in trouble on the block (read Government). And every talker (read MSM) on every stoop is passing the news on, big buzz on the block.

Grew up in Jersey City, this is the way this will be viewed. Now live in upscale NH, reminds me of my daughters middle school.

Some times it's good to take a view not as a lawyer or politician but just as an average Joe.  Because there lots of us out here just laughing and shaking our heads. Is this the very most important thing that the government and the press has to worry about?

Obviously, since your abduction, you missed the fact that no crime was committed.

that he didn't want to indict under the espianage act "because it is a dangerous law."

That's very different than saying he couldn't indict under the espianage act.

I think that Fitzgerald has been very restrained, and professional. He's doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the country.

The fact that some Dems are upset he didn't indict Rove, and some Repubs are calling it a witch hunt suggests that he's actually doing a good job of being non-partisan, and sticking to the facts and the law.

I don't know if he lied or not.  My reading of the indictment suggests that he was probably lying to the reporters - me might have lied. I don't really care.  If he did lie, it was in the national interest - had this scandal been allowed to expand last year, the traitor Kerry might have won the election.  So, if he did lie to keep the Veep out of trouble, he's a true hero.

And I doubt if he'll serve any time in prison at all.  The trial and such will surely drag out for ages - and there's no way that Bush doesn't pardon him in January 2009, no reason not to - and Clinton pardoned all sorts of people like him on the way out.

This again goes to what I've said - Republican 'scandal' (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Plamegate) all involve Republicans acting zealously (if occasionally extra-legally) in defense of the national interest, whereas Democratic scandals revolve around the personal moral failings of both individual Democrats and Democrats as a collective group.

The nail in the coffin seems to be that Mr. Libby told the grand jury that he first learned that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA in a specific conversation with a journalist.  This seems in flat out conflict with other evidence Mr. Fitzgerald has, and it does not seem credible to me that Mr. Libby would forget about the various conversations he had about Mrs. Wilson prior to the time he claims to have been told about her by the journalist.  It's not just a question of Mr. Libby and the journalists having different recollections.  It's a question of Mr. Libby's recorded testimony conflicting with other evidence, which seems to include information provided by Vice President Cheney.

Here's how I sort this out.  There was discussion within the government of Mr. Wilson's trip to Africa and of Mrs. Wilson's role in that.  Mr. Libby was party to these entirely legal discussions and learned from them that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA.  Mr. Libby passed that information along to at least one journalist.  After that information was made public by Mr. Novack, Mr. Libby realized that he might lose both his security clearance and his job because he had failed to take the affirmative steps required by his security clearance to protect classified information from disclosure.  At that point, Mr. Libby should have come clean and offered his resignation.  Assuming his disclosure of classified information was unintentional, he might have suffered nothing more than a short suspension.

Why didn't he just say he couldn't remember, and turn over his notes?  I have to believe a person is lying when they say they CAN remember a conversation of more than a few months ago.

I'll swear when I hear office gossip, I have trouble remembering who it's about, let alone who told me.

When the buzz is hot and all over the place, there is NO WAY you can remember all the conversations and who told who when.

Libby hasn't been a Democrat since the late 1960's, and he's only served Republican adminstrations (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II):

Libby spent much of the 1990s working at a Washington, D.C. law firm, where his client list included Marc Rich, the wealthy fugitive who was given a controversial last-minute pardon by President Bill Clinton.

It's part of Directorate of Intelligence not Directorate of Operations.

His whole investigation looks like amateur hour. How can you possibly be interviewing the neighbors 2 days before the end of the GJ? How can you spend 2 years and not be able to stand up and say unequivocally that Plame was covert, that fact was disclosed and so and so was responsible. Elliot Ness? More like Elliot's mess.

is a founding member of the Project for a New American Century.

To the best of my knowledge, PNAC isn't a breeding ground of Democrats.

Also, he wasn't a Clinton appointee, according to the State Department

During the George H. W. Bush administration, Mr. Libby served in the United States Department of Defense as Principal Deputy Under Secretary (Strategy and Resources), and later was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

the conversation topics and context at your Thanksgiving Dinner last year?

I don't know if he lied or not.  My reading of the indictment suggests that he was probably lying to the reporters - me might have lied. I don't really care.  If he did lie, it was in the national interest - had this scandal been allowed to expand last year, the traitor Kerry might have won the election.  So, if he did lie to keep the Veep out of trouble, he's a true hero.

And I doubt if he'll serve any time in prison at all.  The trial and such will surely drag out for ages - and there's no way that Bush doesn't pardon him in January 2009, no reason not to - and Clinton pardoned all sorts of people like him on the way out.

This again goes to what I've said - Republican 'scandal' (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Plamegate) all involve Republicans acting zealously (if occasionally extra-legally) in defense of the national interest, whereas Democratic scandals revolve around the personal moral failings of both individual Democrats and Democrats as a collective group.

The indictment clearly states that Valerie Plame Wilson was an undercover CIA agent.

Her identity was revealed.

Are you claiming that just because there was no indictment for revealing her identity, that there was no crime?

If a Grand Jury is investigating a murder, and they fail to indict a suspect, does that mean that a murder wasn't committed?

Read it here

Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). 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.

Here is a blurb about someone's retirement which mentions the CPD as part of the Directorate of Operations:

Prior to becoming the ADDO in 1995, he served as Deputy Director of the DCI Nonproliferation Center, which is now known as the DCI Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center.  Before that, he served as Chief of the Counterproliferation Division in the Directorate of Operations.

(emphasis added)

He was an ambassador, appointed by a Republican President.

Where do you get your information about him being a "lefty?"

Libby should plead guilty if he is and President Bush should pardon him at once, thus no trial but the real question remains who did Valerie Plame tell if anyone that she worked for CIA aside from her husband?

Some of the talking points are so comical that Jon Stewart will make a very funny montage of all the Republican politicans saying the exact same thing word for word, all on the same day.

that Fitzgerald was claiming because of Libbys perjury he did not know if a crime was committed, hence his whole baseball analogy.

I am certianly not gonna defend perjury, and I certainly wont defend President Clintons perjury.  But in general I believe that if a person lies to avoid non-criminal embarrasment, then probably they should not be prosecuted for perjury.  

But are you proposing the reason Libby lied was to avoid non-criminal embarrasment? what sort of embarrasment would have result for Libby if he told the truth?

In terms of Fitzgeralds reason for prosecuting this perjury, I assume he strongly suspects Libby committed crime, but can not prove it cause Libby lied. In any case, the question that needs to be asked, is what was Libbys motivaiton for lying? and that determines if he should be prosecuted or not.

Don't the rest of you feel somewhat culpable in the deaths of 2000 of our soldiers by voting for Bush in 2000? His administration convinced us to go to war with frabicated information, then did everything in their power to ensure that we took the bait. Not only did they commit treason by disclosing classified information (Plame), but they tricked us into going into Iraq. Now thousands of our fellow Americans are dead or wounded for no apparent reason and we have committed billions of dollars to the endeavor so that rich Republicans can get richer with their no bid contracts... I am going to go throw up.

I know what you are feeling. It's not from voting, it's a symptom of kicked-off-the-site-itis.

So, you know, bye.

sounds like you need to go to the daily show, bartman. And stay there.

The indictment only talks about false statements that Libby made to the Grand Jury concerning who said what to whom -- and on that score, it guess it depends on how effective Libby's defense attorneys are at discrediting the witnesses against him and contradicting whatever evidence Fitzgerald has been able to amass.

Here's the thing about that: the evidence that contradicts Libby's suspect testimony is that he learned about Plame's identity and employment from 1) the Under Secretary of State, 2) a senior officer of the CIA, and, most importantly, 3) Vice President Cheney.

How did Fitzgerald get this evidence? Libby obviously didn't tell the grand jury these things, which is the whole point. And clearly he and the GJ considered the evidence good enough to indict, which tells me it came from people present at each of the above conversations.

That means that in at least one case, it is testimony either from Vice President Cheney, or someone who was present at a conversation in which Cheney disclosed that information to Libby. Moreover, I find it highly likely that Cheney would have been asked to corroborate one version or the other during the course of this investigation--it would have been irresponsible not to.

If this goes to trial, the Vice President will almost certainly be called to testify as to the veracity of that alleged conversation.

Defending Libby from perjury on this point will involve accusing Cheney of it.

is similar to what happens when one has "one too many" from the cooler - but in your case the overindulgence was not on fine (and not-so-fine) spirits, but rather the consumption of Known Facts™ and Talking Points™ - but that doesn't give you the right to come in and regurgite them all over our rugs without a timely ejection.

Clean-up on aisle #147.

I know this is late, but by definition almost any resident of Foggy Bottom is a liberal. They are almost exclusively arrogant, self-absorbed Yahoos. Doesn't matter who appointed them.

okay I don't think i addressed exactly the question you were asking.

Yes I take Fitzgerald at his word that he thinks any perjury should be prosecuted.  I dont think agree with that philosophy..but thats just my opinion.

You are absurd, Sir!

IF there is no indictment on the specific item at issue, then indeed there was no crime. If there was revelation of names, it was obviously not a crime, otherwise there wold be an indictment. How can this be hard to understand?

Wilson went to Niger and determined the yellowcake/Iraq connection was bogus. To this day, virtually everyone (including the White House) agrees about that, right? Didn't Wilson merely tell the truth in his NYT editorial, shortly after Bush's State of the Union speech which mentioned the bogus Niger claim?

Why did they leave the yellowcake/Iraq bogus claim in the speech?

Why did they bring Plame into it? Even if Plame did recommend him for the assignment--so what, he had experience with Niger, he did his job, and his findings have not been contested (that I know of). So if Plame did recommend him, does that mean his findings can't be trusted? I honestly don't understand the logic of bringing Plame into it, other than being a clumsy attempt to smear Wilson.

Why didn't the Aministration offer a valid argument against Wilson's criticism? And by the way, what would that argument be?

Your post is at best a non sequiter. Her "cover" was not blown, unless by cover you mean her working at a desk job at Langley that is not protected by anything. I suspect you are not very bright.

And if someone asked me under oath about them, I would state that I can't remember.

or your daughter's middle school friends had access to nuclear weapons, then I'd be concerned.

Let's go invite a bunch of left wing nutbags so we can debate their lame ideas over and over and over and over ad nauseum.

Oh wait. Let's not.

This is getting tiresome.

acting zealously in defense of the national interest?

I would type a list of everything from New Hampshire election fraud to Ohio corruption, to Jack Abramoff and beyond, but my fingers would fall off.

Talk about "drinking the Kool-Aid"

so your telling bartman if there is a murder but the grand jury does not indict anyone, then there is no crime.  

You I am afraid are the one being absurd.

I think you meant Reagenesque, as in Iran-Contra Hearings.  

Clinton said "is" isn't...

Reagan said "I can't recall" ...

you are not very bright.

So you understand, her cover was that she worked for brewster&jennings.  Once the fact that brewster&jennings was just a fake CIA cover company, any other agents asscoiated with brewster&jennings were put in mortal danger.

The CIA did do a damage assement report as result of valerie plames id being published.  No one knows what the damage assement report concluded because it is classified.

I've read three comments in a row from you that are nothing but ad hominem attacks against people who are participating in a good faith conversation on the topic at hand. It contributes nothing towards advancing the discussion. Just because someone is a liberal doesn't give you free rein to throw the posting rules out the window.

Did you not read my example about murder?

If Patrick Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury found that Lewis Libbies (alleged) lies prevented them from being able to determine the identity of the leaker beyond a reasonable doubt, then there would be no indictment even though there was a crime.

Also, the investigation is ongoing. Just because he didn't indict now doesn't mean there was no crime, because he could be wating to see what evidence Mr. Libby uses to defend himself at trial.

"If there is no indictment on the specific item at issue, then indeed there was no crime" is a bizarre statement to try to defend. Every day crimes are comitted where prosecutors are unable to bring an indictment. That doesn't suddenly change the past to "undo" the crime.

Lewis Libby himself.

Although I'm not shocked to learn from you that Libby is probably an arrogant, self-absorbed Yahoo.

and have chastised my source for that information. I knew that he was still in D.C. in government service. I have since learned - "During the Bill Clinton administration, Libby stayed on in Washington to serve as legal advisor for the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China."

and this interesting tidbit:

"He currently lives in McLean, Virginia with his two children and wife, Harriet Grant, a former lawyer on the Democratic staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee."

I should not infer guilt my mere association though. I will have to take your word for his registration. You were closer to the mark than I.  

Wilson went to Niger and determined the yellowcake/Iraq connection was bogus.

Actually no, he did not determine any such thing.

To this day, virtually everyone (including the White House) agrees about that, right?

No again.

Didn't Wilson merely tell the truth in his NYT editorial, shortly after Bush's State of the Union speech which mentioned the bogus Niger claim?

Not even close.

Why did they leave the yellowcake/Iraq bogus claim in the speech?

Perhaps because MI-6 believes it to this day.

Why did they bring Plame into it?

Because Plame suggested her hubby (that would be Wilson) for the trip and her hubby (Wilson, again) lied about that to anyone who was willing to listen.

he had experience with Niger

Really?  That is a new twist.

he did his job

I'm not aware that his "job" while on assignment with the CIA in this regard consisted almost entirely of sipping mint sweet-tea and chatting-up mid-level bureaucrats - my tax dollars at work, I suppose.

and his findings have not been contested (that I know of)

You obviously know very little, as demonstrated by this virgin post here.

So if Plame did recommend him, does that mean his findings can't be trusted?

Let's see, an agency that is carrying-on an not-so-secret exercise to discredit the civilian Administration sends a critic of said Administration's policies to Niger on the advice of said critic's wife - nope, I see no reason whatsoever to suspect the trustworthiness of the report.

Why didn't the Aministration offer a valid argument against Wilson's criticism? And by the way, what would that argument be?

See the part above about MI-6 insisting to this day that Wilson is full of krap.

Wow, an entire post where almost every, single, solitary word consists of a Known Fact™ and/or a Talking Point™ - that has to be some sort of record.

I hope the Powers-that-Be don't boot you off too soon, you may be fun to keep around for a while.

Find out the definition of ad hominem and get back to me.

What you're really trying to say is that the White House can be damaged or even taken down just as effectively with allegations of perjury as with violations of "other" laws.

Right?

And if Fitzpatrick presses hard for that reason, it's prosecutorial overreach. That's life in the big city.

But it's still dirty.

If you think he didn't indict but could have, you are smoking something.  There wasn't even grounds under the IIPA for an investigation.  Pipe dream.

No personal attacks.

Any ... person of basic good sense and goodwill, regardless of party, is welcome to participate and hopefully come around to the ideals of Republicanism.

Are you in a position to be changing the rules here? I was told that as long as I am polite, honest, and avoid engaging in "canned talking points," that my comments are welcome here.

If the site owners would prefer that the site become an echo chamber where dissent is not allowed, then that is clearly their right. But I was under them impression that for now, dissent is acceptible.

the best reply you can come up with?

I believe that tactic is refered to as an "ad-hominem," and it is usually a good sign that someone has been bested in a debate.

This from the guy who, among many violations of this rule today, most recently told someone: "Talk about "drinking the Kool-Aid"

On the other hand, my pointing out that you are clearly on the wrong site is nothing if not helpful.

If you don't consider your remarks about the daily show and republican "talking points" and the variety of other insults you're throwing around today to be insulting, you belong at DailyKos, where you can wallow with your fellow libs.

I suspect you won't be around long anyway, so it's all moot.

Ta!

if he had even a smidge of evidence to indict on the actual Plame outing, he would have done it.

Ad hominem is a fallacy that requires my efforts be directed at disproving your "point", that I be "debating" you.

You see, I wasn't doing either of those things. I was pointing out the degree to which you are not observing the Redstate mission.

I came up with the Wilson conversion theory.  Its pretty good, hehehe...

The Inflamitory: Ambassador Wilson Conspiracy

And if you don't think he is a lib now, you didn't read my previous post.  Get going!

(Chronic lung problems. Same reason I couldn't go to West Point for college.)

Read the text of the indictment.

Read the press release.

As enforced by The Posting Rules:

 The posting rules for redstate.org are as follows:

  * No profanity.

  * No personal attacks.

  * No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.

  * No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.

Banning for ideological reasons will take place only in the cases of fundamentally anti-American ideologies. Nazis, Islamists, Communists and racists are unwelcome at redstate.org. Any other person of basic good sense and goodwill, regardless of party, is welcome to participate and hopefully come around to the ideals of Republicanism.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

Such as, for instance:

"sounds like you need to go to the daily show, bartman. And stay there."

[speaking of another poster] "Let's go invite a bunch of left wing nutbags so we can debate their lame ideas over and over and over and over ad nauseum."

Seems it is zee2 who wants to spin.

In addition to these clear examples of ad hominem attacks--that is to say, attacks against a person rather than the substance of their arguments--I can cite numerous other examples of you simply being nasty, adopting a sneering and condescending tone towards people who are arguing in good faith and have not taken the same tone with you.

If you wish to fall back on a definition of ad hominem based on the logical fallacy rather than the generally-accepted definition for posting rules of "personal attacks", then that's your problem--but it's not fooling anyone else. I've seen you put forth perfectly decent arguments here, so I know you have them.

So knock off the personal attacks--full stop.

this site isn't not the "debate forum" that you think it is.

The purpose of redstate is not for liberals to have yet another forum to espouse ridiculous and unfounded ideas, claim Republicans are parroting, talking points spouting, war-mongers, and generally have free reign to soak up everyone's time trying to correct their ridiculous ideas.

It's a place for republicans. Others, as has been said many, many times, are here at the discretion of the powers that be.

You do not have any special "right" to be here, so don't try and play that card with me.

You've spent today attacking republicans, their ideas, their ideals, and making assertions and accusations. That's not what redstate is here for.

Since I have no authority, you may consider this merely advice and my observations based on past experiences with liberal troublemakers at this site.

And if you don't think you are being a troublemaker, you've got some more thinking to do.

by your loose definitions you are, yourself, engaging in ad hominem.

This is a pointless discussion. I'm not going to cease my arguments with the liberal attack dogs, so if you think I'm out of line report it.

Otherwise, consider your objection noted and discarded.

No need for a trial, we should just do away with indictments as well.  

Accusation = Guilt

I'm of the opinion that there was a lot of sloppiness going on here.  My gut feeling is that this administration has been more guilty of sloppiness and clumsiness than malfeasance, especially in matters like this.  When I think about Scooter Libby in the context of the Wilson op-ed, I have to imagine that sure, he had discussed it inside the Administration and then the op-ed came out, and so he starts talking with reporters, and then somewhere along the line it hits him that the whole thing might be a terrible setup, and he's just let the dogs slip all their leashes, so he panics and freaks out.  The thing that bothers me is that apparently the bell never went off in Scooter's mind:  what if this whole thing is a confabulation designed to get this whole administration on the hook?  That doesn't excuse his lying to the Grand Jury (if it can be proved that he did when this thing goes to court.)

I am reluctantly coming around to something approaching your take on these events.  Libby said today that it was a "sad day for him" and I can't help but agree.  There are so many times in the past five years that this Administration has been caught flatfooted because they really didn't realize how much so many people in the media and elsewhere hate their guts and really, really want to see them banished to the salt mines.  It's not just a matter of media people trying to keep tabs on the powerful -- it's a personal, visceral hatred that runs through every fiber of some in the media and elsewhere.  I know today that law professors around the country are celebrating Scooter's indictment and they're truly disappointed that the whole administration didn't end Today in a group suicide.  

Listening to C-Span this afternoon, there was one caller who really almost made me cry:  he was a self-described Iraqi expat who blessed this administration for what it did to liberate his homeland and was deeply regretful that this has befallen Libby.  The Left in this country has become such an enemy of freedom it just blows my mind to believe that they're even Americans.

considers the employment status of people who are not covert employees to be classified?

okay argue semantics, if you can use a semantic argument to make yourself feel better about an immorol act, I suppose more power to you.

I think Fitz really believes that misleading people like himself is a bad bad thing to do. I don't disagree of course although there is the question of degree (which you touched on yourself). None of us can know whether Fitz honestly believes that Scooter's statements impeded discovery of the truth. For that matter, none of us knows whether Scooter even lied- that's for a jury to decide. But my sense is that, like a lot of law-enforcement type people, Fitz instinctively comes down real hard on anyone he thinks is not being straight with him. And if you're in his position, you can hurt people pretty badly in return. My basis for saying that is watching his face and listening to his words when he was talking about the importance of truth to prosecutions. I happen to think he's out of control, but if that is actually true, then it's a problem that's built into the system we have.

how is that "liberal logic" any crazier than the logic since no one was indicted for outing valerie plame, there was no crime involved in outing her?

And Catsy.  Please.  Let this drop.  We were almost on the way to getting something discussed without an outpouring of rancor and emnity.  I mean, look, both of you:  People at high levels of our government have been indicted or are still under investigation for serious crimes.  We're at war in Iraq and we have a lot of hurdles to cross before we're sitting in the sunshine toasting each other's wisdom over margaritas.  I almost regret that I posted the damn message when things like this happen between people who would rather snipe at each other than discuss the substance of the matter.  We've got problems here, and people have legitimate and differing takes on what went wrong and who is to blame and how much they should be punished and what it all means and whether or not it matters:  please quit the personal attacks now, both of you, for the benefit of all of us, OK?

The world is watching RedState -- and that's no exaggeration anymore.  We're increasingly getting mentioned in big national newspapers, we're increasingly being mentioned on NPR, we've got congressional representatives contributing diaries, our traffic is exploding, and we're moving far beyond where we were even six months ago.  Please, end this now and go play an online game of Tank Wars.

My property taxes are up another $800 again this year. For the first time last year I got hit with the ATM on my federal taxes, and its going to be worse next year.

I have my son in a Catholic high school because the local high school is full of nonsense, for $10k.

In the next town over a guy was killed by an illegal alien in an auto accident, with no insurance.

A father of one of my daughter's classmates was called up to serve in Iraq.

There are real issues out there!! The Washington gotcha stuff is wearing very thin. Let's go do something very unique, let's discuss and solve the real issues that confront our country.

"Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid" was the only thing I have said today that even remotely comes to the point of being an insult. And it was intended as a comment about the absurdity of the previous comment, not an attack on the person.

Mentioning the Daily Show wasn't an attack. It was presenting a fact. The commenter was implying that the Republicans don't use talking points. The Daily Show episodes showing a montage of numerous Republicans all using the exact same phrasing in their speeches is evidence disproving that point.

And you told me that I "need to go to the Daily Show, and stay there."

Claiming that was "nothing if not helpful" is nothing if not disingenous.

Let me just be clear about something. If redstate is the kind of site where the likes of bartman can spend the day in attack mode unchecked, and yet defending myself against a trio of liberals gets me reprimanded, then something has gone seriously wrong.

I think Bartman and Catsy have missed the updates to the posting rules. I have not.

Please see my comment to mousy...er, absentee below.  And that goes for you too, Bartman.  Everyone can read the rules, but trying to keep to the spirit of them is apparently too difficult for this highly-educated and diverse crew.  Who says that diversity works?  ;)  I mean, really.  Enough.

Wilson went to Niger and determined the yellowcake/Iraq connection was bogus.

Actually no, he did not determine any such thing.

Wilson's opinion was that the claim that Iraq got yellowcake uranium from Niger was bogus. The title of his now famous NYT editorial was "What I didn't find in Africa." Are you saying that Wilson agreed that the yellowcake claim was true, after visiting Niger?

To this day, virtually everyone (including the White House) agrees about that, right?

No again.

From the BBC:

Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.

Why did they leave the yellowcake/Iraq bogus claim in the speech?

Perhaps because MI-6 believes it to this day.

Do you have any other sources for this? You linked to an opinion piece, which is fine, but I'd like to see more sources, if you don't mind.

Why did they bring Plame into it?

Because Plame suggested her hubby (that would be Wilson) for the trip and her hubby (Wilson, again) lied about that to anyone who was willing to listen.

So they outed a covert spy just to show that Wilson is a liar?

he had experience with Niger

Really?  That is a new twist.

OK, I may have been wrong about that. But he did have experience with Iraq, as well as being former ambassador to Gabon and the senior director for African affairs on the staff of the National Security Council. Do you think he was unqualified to check out the uranium claim?

he did his job

I'm not aware that his "job" while on assignment with the CIA in this regard consisted almost entirely of sipping mint sweet-tea and chatting-up mid-level bureaucrats - my tax dollars at work, I suppose.

Are you saying he didn't do what the CIA sent him to do? Or that the CIA sent him on vacation?

and his findings have not been contested (that I know of)

You obviously know very little, as demonstrated by this virgin post here.

Where is the evidence that  his findings are wrong?

Thanks for the warm welcome! Would it be possible to discuss this in polite way?

How you feel.  I've been in this situation before.  I've been on RedState for more than a year and I've been in exactly these kinds of exchanges.  I want them both to read the rules and I want them both to take it as a warning that this kind of fighting isn't going to be tolerated.  This is an important thread, it's an important subject, and it's a matter of national importance.  If people can't conduct themselves in a manner that comports with the level of importance the discussion demands, then to hell with them, and I will be the first one to ban them if it keeps up.  I'm not blaming you.  I would appreciate it, though, if people got back to discussing the matter at hand, and that goes for both of them, because it seems that they've ganged up on you a little.  I won't tolerate it.  

Many crimes go unpunished.  Many crimes are never even known of.  Many trees fall in the woods with no one to hear.  

But in this case its the law that defines crime not liberal pundits.  And the laws that have been created are very clear.  And guess what?  There is no crime in this case under those laws.  

Its nice to be a liberal and have a belief system that is unwaivering.  Selected not elected.  Voter fraud.  Lies and tricks to get into war.

But just because you believe a crime is committed, doesn't make it so.  And no one has yet established evidence that a crime could have been committed as per the two underlying statutes.  Now there may be some information that we are not privy too, but it would have to be fantastic.  So fantastic it would take a huge conspiracy to pull it off.  

The option you could be happiest with is perhaps they have a perjury indictment for Rove prepared, yet not approved by the previous GJ.  But if you are honest and do your homework you will come to the same conclusion about the IIPA and Espionage Act.  Impossible.  Again, go back to the LIBERAL lawyers in the Amici Curiea to spring Judy.

P.S.  Its all fun, nothing personal, keep posting!

is that Fitz has a constituency - the broader law enforcement community. He is a career prosecutor and has to work with all manner of people who work on "undercover" projects. He will be working with these people long after GWB leaves office. Even desk jockeys get nervous when their name gets any publicity. He is under pressure that might not be readily apparent.

I am also fairly certain that he has indicted on the most serious charge that he believes will survive a motion to dismiss. That is prosecution 101, especially when you are trying to get someone to "flip". If the jury is inclined to throw the accused a bone, you stand a better chance of getting what you wanted in the first place.

Even though sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, they are still widely followed. I am not an expert, but I am fairly sure he is not really looking at 30 years. For all we know, he may already have a pardon in his pocket, with no date affixed. If Mark Rich can be pardoned without much consequence, certainly a case can be made for Scooter.

I doubt Libby will flip. Maybe the broken limb was just a warning;-)

Show me the law lib!  Show me any evidence, not even proof, just some evidence that the law is satisfied.  Good luck!  You can't do it.

is going on, here? Since when did you think you were a moderator?

I don't even have time to sort out what is going on here, but it needs to stop.

I have lurked for some time prior to that.

My original reason for making an account was because of a comment that blamed liberal legislatures and judges for (among other things) assisted suicide laws.

As an Oregonian who voted AGAINST the assisted suicide law, I wanted to point out that it was a citizen initiative, and had nothing to do with the legislature or the judiciary.

Since that time, I have engaged in discussions with the moderators about what they feel is appropriate posting behavior for a liberal. I have posted a diary entitle Why I am a Liberal at the request of a moderator. He was concerned that a tangent conversation was hijacking a diary, and suggested I start a new one. I am well aware of their opinions.

Streiff is reading this conversation. If I was out of line, I expect that he would let me know.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/19/94943/786/142#142

First, apologies for the excessive snark.  As you've made an effort to get past the talking points, I'll return the favor.

Most of the answers to your questions (particularly the first couple and penultimate) can be found in the Senate Intel Committee report I linked and am frankly too lazy at this late hour to link again.  It's a pdf file - so if you're using Acrobat Reader better than (I think) 6.0 you can search for yourself - it's about 560 pages long, don't try to read it as you'll fall asleep and likely smack your head on the keyboard - likely damaging both.

A summary (one of many) is here, and the money-quote from that piece is:

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

A Yahoo search reveals lots of well sourced links on the MI-6 connection - take your pick of a couple.  FWIW, Kelly is been pretty reliable.  YMMV.

Sorry though, "out(ing) a covert spy" is another of those Talking Points™.  You are asserting facts not in evidence at present.

are you saying he didn't do what the CIA sent him to do? Or that the CIA sent him on vacation?

Nope - I'm saying that he did precisely what the CIA sent him to do - which was to "find nothing" - and therein lies the problem.

Hey, the smoking things a figure of speech.  (cough cough)  I've read both much earlier.  Says nothing.  Gives no indication other than Fitz really wanted there to be a statute he could use.  

And I listened to the PC twice.  He almost seemed apologetic, and kept saying how serious the leak was.  Total BS.  Serious maybe, but no crime.  Again my challenge to you all.  Show me any evidence of a crime as defined by either of the two applicable statues.

Just responding to someone who was telling me that I needed to go away and not come back.

Obviously, if you tell me that, I will. In fact I wouldn't even have a choice about the matter....

*grin*

He would be set for life!  Multimillion book deals, thousand dollar a crack speaking engagements, the trial of the century.  Heckfy yes he would have, all partisanship aside.

I hear where you are coming from. However, I ask you to at least consider if your flurry of comments over the last few hours may represent a case where you let your zeal overcome your judgement. I've seen you posting here for the last two weeks, including your diary entry. I've not complained until today because there was nothing to complain about until today (that I saw).

Consider further that the same level of contrarianism at Kos would have had you long since banned or 1 starred into irrelevance. Here you are given a voice and it is unrestricted until and unless moderated by someone.

Anyway, the point is, this isn't a debate site in the liberals vs. conservatives sense. It's a republican site. Some of us may even refer to it as a refuge. We have been told this is the place for the advancement of our party, as well as debate over the strategy of the party. I cannot tell you how much I don't need another place to debate left vs. right all day long, and I suspect many others agree.

It is one thing to bring up alternate points of view on particular subjects. It is quite another to level sweeping indictments at the very idea of conservativism. I submit you went too close the latter today, and I admit you have not been doing so during your entire time at the site.

Just thoughts here. I feel it necessary to keep pointing out that I am not anyone of authority.

And I liked it; you're a good writer.  Tempers are flaring today.  They've been building slowly  for about the past month or so, and they're reaching a crescendo here.  We've had Republicans attacking Republicans on this site over Miers (the arguments between smagar and Blanton over Hugh Hewitt come first to mind.)  Nerves are pretty raw even without the pointy sticks.  

I have one of my own diaries still to write (since I promised C17wife that I would ;) ) about Why I Became A Conservative, and I hope you'll read it.  I take it as a given that you'll be around long enough to read it when I say that.

In the meantime, maybe everyone should read one of my favorite threads by one of the founders of this site, cool off a bit, and come back to the meat of this discussion.

Absentee's point of view, which I share:  RedState is something of a refuge for conservatives and republicans.  There aren't many other good, participatory blogs on the web where we have the dominant voice.  This is the only one.  I don't count Free Republic as being of the same caliber, and when the discussion here starts to descend into a freeperall, it bothers me.  That is all.  Over and out.  Fade to black.

that as a liberal I have quite a bit of respect for you kowalski, well said, and thanks for the link to Tankwars

So I don't know which exact statute was violated, but are you telling me there is no law against goverment officials leaking classified information?

And if there is no such law, we probably both agree this is a Law congress should probably be busy writing.

Have you given up on crime and turned toward morality?  Just wondering, but what do you think of the actions of covert NOC CIA agents?  Moral? Immoral?  I mean these are the people who do the real torturing, assassination, bribery and manipulation.  And what action exactly was immoral?  Is your moral code a higher authority than the U.S. penal code?  Lets all argue morality now! Thats some real fun!  Is it moral to cheat on your wife?  In the oval office?

umm obviously it is not moral to cheat on your wife.

and how in the world am I suppose to know if Valerie Plame has done immoral things as a NOC, but as far as I know she has not done anything immoral as NOC.

So are you suggesting that we should get rid of torture, if so, I think you are on the right track.

that was immoral is revealing classified info that could potentially lead to the death of intelligence agents that relied upon the cover of being associated with brewster&jennings.

There was a listing for Brewster Jennings from Dun & Bradstreet (wikipedia):

"legal services office," which could mean a law firm, with annual sales of $60,000, one employee, and a chief executive identified as "Victor Brewster, Partner."

Lots of 'danger' to all the other employees.

I didn't say there aren't such things. I heard the reporters make ridiculous and easily dealt with claims and call them talking points, which doesn't make them talking points.

Are you saying that once someone refers to something as a talking point, it therefore is one? In that case, I designate your objection as a liberal talking point.

Here's a real talking point, a dem one:

Fitzgerald is an impeccable, unimpeachable, non-partisan prosecutor.

Which is why I'm so confused at avowed liberal zee choosing to ignore the very plainly stated decree by Fitz not to draw the exact conclusion that zee is trying to draw from Fitz's remarks. Is it his position that Fitz meant that as a lie? That he winked when he said it? Or maybe that Fitz is only the ultimate source of truth when it comes to indicting republicans, but not when referring to conclusions liberals might draw?

"The nail in the coffin seems to be that Mr. Libby told the grand jury that he first learned that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA in a specific conversation with a journalist."

I don't see it in the indictment.  Libby implied to the reporters that he was sure of this . . . and it isn't clear exactly what he wasn't sure of . . . her identity or whether reporters were talking about it.

But where did he tell the GJ that indeed he first learned of it from reporters?  I can't find it.

to be frank I dont really understand your point.

which conclusion did I draw? and what was Fitz exact quote that suggests people should not make the aforementioned conclusion.

I'll make that claim in complete ignorance, and ask for your knowledge about it. Here's what I suspect - there are various security classifications in the CIA, and throughout the govt. for that matter, and "classified" is a legally defined term which covers many thousands of employees, a small subset of which are also "covert", another legally defined term.

Please educate me, correct or disprove all or portions of the above.

I misinterpreted your message, then. Apologies.

has changed quite a bit since I started visiting here. I realize that many of the stereotypes that liberals have are incorrect. (As most stereotypes are)

I have two personal flaws which will probably get me banned here eventually. When I believe that someone is saying something which appears to be clearly, factually, provably incorrect, I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut. And (as everyone who has ever posted to a blog, newsgroup, listserv, etc knows) discussing something over a text-based communications network tends to bring out reactionary and extreme behavior that is normally supressed during face to face communication.

The second flaw is that I'm not as thick skinned as I would like to be. I didn't appreciate being called a "left wing nutbag," and being told to "go  to the Daily Show and stay there."

I would like to engage in debate here, because places like free republic, and LGF don't tend to bring out the best and the brightest.

I'm much more rough-and-tumble on DKos than I would even consider being here. I am very much aware that I'm in your house, and I need to be polite. Sometimes I get caught up in the conversation, and I apologize for that, but I don't think I've ever lost my temper. In fact, I don't think I've ever responded to someone here by giving worse than I've taken. (On the other hand, I'm just about the least objective judge of that.)

Heck, I had Armando make some very personal insults about me, because he thought I just hung around DKos to complain about people using foul language and having bad attitudes. I responded with the single most foul mouthed piece of writing I have ever produced. (To make the point that I'm not bothered by foul language.) I think he must have had me confused with someone else. :P

I've told people they were acting like the liberal equivalent of a wingnut for being so uncritical about global warming doomsday scenarios. I've argued with hippies that they have no right to use the term "reality based community" if they continue to deny that Vietnam Vets got spit on when they returned from their tours. And I've been rated with my share of 1s. But, I've always received 4's from people who felt that suppressing an idea just because it isn't popular is bad. And I've never even come close to being banned. In fact, I've never heard of anyone being banned from DKos for anything less severe than posting dozens of repeatedly disruptive comments, making no attempt at debate. And I've never seen anyone threatened with banning, even obvious trolls.

I posted excerpts from the posting guidelines, in an attempt to defend myself from a perceieved accusation that I shouldn't be posting here because I'm not a Republican or a conservative. Plus, there are TONS of personal attacks lobbed at liberals here, and the only ones who manage to stick around are the ones who can generally refrain from responding in kind. It gets tough having to take it without being able to really respond. But I know that life isn't fair, and I'm free to leave anytime. I'm not saying the site should change, merely pointing out what things look like as a liberal here.

There are quite a few Republican talking points which are factually incorrect regarding Valerie Wilson. Just as there are quite a few Democratic talking points which are incorrect about global warming. I hate seeing falsehoods propegated on either side of the isle. And I do my best to respond to them.

If this site is intended as a refuge for conservatives and Republicans to meet without having to interact with those of us who disagree with your viewpoints, then I can respect that, and I will leave you alone. But I have been told that this isn't the case. And as I mentioned when I discussed my weaknesses, if the site is claiming to be open to differing viewpoints, but it really isn't, then that bothers me.

I'm sure streiff would respond that "he really can't imagine any way he could care any less" about it, and that's fine. But as long as the site advertises itself as a place for honest discussion between people with opposing points of view, I would like to participate. If the site owners choose to change the sites purpose so that it is only open to Republicans and/or conservatives, then I will leave.

Then Val is guilty for revealing her status to her hubby.  Clearly immoral.

take a look at the report. Perhaps "outing a covert spy" is a "talking point," but is it true or not true that the Administration outed her? Didn't Fitzgerald acknowledge that Plame was undercover? Novak said that two senior Administration officials told him about her.

From your linked BBC piece:

Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

First, this piece predates almost all the current information on the subject.

Second, Bush should never have backed away from the statement - stupid, stupid, stupid.

Finally, what would you lay as the odds that the quoted CIA official was indeed Mr. Valarie Plame's wife?

Bed is calling - don't feel a need to rush a response.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Just poking around, its all fun.  I just brought it up because I was thinking about it today in the context of Joe as anti-war poster boy.  Total speculation.  Love to try and torture libs, with intellect sometimes and rhetoric others.  I wrote it like this:

The Inflamitory: A "Sad Day" Says Sad Sack

I thought I had already put this earlier, but it was in reply to someone else down below.

He very clearly said that convening another grand jury was routine in these cases, and shouldn't add to the fever pitch, and also earlier in the press conference that it was common to do so and that it didn't mean anything about future charges.

Yet you are drawing the conclusion that continuing the investigation means he is saying someone committed a crime and will be found out. It doesn't wash.

Also, he made pains to point out that this indictment was NOT about criminal disclosure of anyone's CIA status.

I really don't know how much more clear he could have been with regard to other crimes or future indictments. Whether or not you think those things are coming, it's certainly out of the realm of reality to claim that Fitz was alluding to or implying them. He went to great lenghts not to do so in my opinion.

you think CIA agents can't trust there spouses too keep there identity secret?????

I think telling a Journalists whose job it is to write stories for everybody to read, is a heck of alot different than telling ones spouse.

Let me get these out before I pass-out at the keyboard:

is it true or not true that the Administration outed her?

We. Do. Not. Know. Yet.

That is what Fitzgerald was supposed to be spending the last 22-months finding out.  Apparently, he's not there yet.

Didn't Fitzgerald acknowledge that Plame was undercover?

NOC is not covert - and it is a distinction with a difference.  "Covert" is the key to the relevant statutes for determining if anyone outed anyone.  By all indications, Plame was not covert and had not been for more than 5-years - statute doesn't apply.

Further, I believe all Fitzgerals has acknowledged to date is that Plame's status was "classified".  That tells us precisely nothing - everything in the governemnt is "classified"; even if a document is marked with a big "UNCLASSIFIED" at the top and bottom of every page, it is "classified" as such.

Read Leon's front page for further insights if you're so inclined - I'm largely in agreement with him.  I just don't have the mental chops left to keep up.

Out.

I really wasn't aware I was using any particularly pointy sticks. On the other hand, I shouldn't have responded to the comment about "liberal nut jobs."

I really need a filter on my computer that detects "meta-arguments," and locks up my browser.  :)

BTW, the diary you referenced was very good too.

I was simply saying we should not draw the conclusion "there was no crime of outing a CIA agent" and like you said fitzgerald said we should not draw any premature conclusions.  You will note congressman Kingston did draw the conclusion that no such outing had taken place, and that is what I was taking issue with.  I was taking issue with the notion that Fitzgerald cleared anybody of the crime of outing a CIA agent.

certianly libs are uncomfortable with alot of what the CIA does.  That being said I don't think having a Intelligence Agency in of itself is immoral.  Certainly we need intelligence, and there is alot of

intelligence gathering that can be done without the methods of torture.

Although it does seem to me Valeries job as NOC was probably quite benign, but who knows for sure.  

That being said, you must think it also unusual the attitude the right seems to be currently taking towards the CIA.

if you would refrain from trying to torture libs.

Several people have posted, mentioning that they want the conversation (and the web site) to stay substantive, and civil. I'm doing my best to comply, but I don't deal well with people who intentionally bait me.

Feel free to go to DKos though. (I've got the same username there.) I'll be happy to engage in a more rough and tumble discussion as long as it's taking place in an environment where it is acceptible behavior.

Torturing libs on this site is kind of like torturing an animal that's locked in a cage. "Libs" aren't allowed to respond in kind. But, as I said, I'll glady bite your head off over at DKos.  :)

The hawks, generally the right, love the CIA as an idea.  But real intel from sources requires a certain long term culture.  And the ground from which they get agents is very left wing ivy league.  Same thing with State Department.  Not that that is a bad thing, just a fact.  That is why we have a fiasco in one sense.  The hawks send most of the money away from these liberal bureaucracies and into things like satellites and submarines as sources.  Which leaves us with very little humint.  Hence the total breakdown of humint from the Middle East.  But is it anyones fault?  No, yet we still won't recognize it and reform.

Please, say it isn't so!  It's so far beyond Armando to use insulting language and scurrilous epithets that I can't believe anyone still imagines that it's within his behaviorial repertoire to conduct himself that way.  Everyone knows what a sweetheart he is, especially when it comes to people he doesn't agree with for one reason or another.  I kind of like to think of Armando being one of the inquistors in the Gulag Archipelago, personally, and we all know how forgiving and kindhearted those kind souls were to their former Comrades, especially those returning from the German front after having survived concentration camps!  Except that he's the one who sneaks in late at night to give people chocolate and bread in their punishment cells, and tell them that everything will be OK.  Ahem.

But I digress...

If the comment ratings were still active, I would have rated this one a five because it's a patient and obviously heartfelt explanation of what you've experienced here, or feel what you feel you've experienced.  RedState is still growing, and there are a lot of pains associated with that growth.  We still have an urgent need to bring more people who can be thoughtful advocates for Republican positions into the commentary here.  Even with are massively explosive growth in the past few weeks, we're still only serving up something like 1/10th the weekly pageviews of Kos.  There are an awful lot of very intelligent Republicans out there who simply haven't heard of RedState yet, or who are perhaps too busy to devote the necessary time.  We've had to fight for that growth, and I think at these moments especially, when passions are high and everyone is a bit wounded, things tend to degenerate quickly into the blog equivalent of fistfights.

Let's all take a step back tonight and consider that we should all endeavor to be more respectful of our thoughtful contributors, regardless of which party they are from, because they put a lot of effort into their commentaries, and they put a lot of effort into biting their lip at times like this.  I won't put words in Streiff's mouth.  But I personally care about the environment here, and although of course, in the World According to Me, I'm right almost all the time and I always agree with myself, I recognize that I'm just going to have to tolerate (sigh, sob) all these differing views.  If you get my drift. ;)

I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut. And (as everyone who has ever posted to a blog, newsgroup, listserv, etc knows) discussing something over a text-based communications network tends to bring out reactionary and extreme behavior that is normally supressed during face to face communication.

And truer words were never spoken.  It's an inherent feature of the medium (or is it a bug?)  that you are ALWAYS tempted to try to get in the last word, the deepest and bloodiest and most slashing riposte, the skankiest, smelliest snark you can possibly come up with, thereby disemboweling your cyber-foe and leaving them curled up in the fetal position while farting in their general direction.  Ahhh, progress.  Our forefathers died for this, you know...

Hmmmm.

So here's a different way of approaching it, one that I am increasingly trying to use myself:  if someone responds to a comment of yours with a comment that you just think is so insipid you can't imagine that they even have both hemispheres in their head, much less still connected to their circulatory system -- consider letting it go.  Let them win, at least for six hours.  Come back tomorrow, after you've had a good, long time to mull it over and really get your counterargument straight, and as devastating as possible.  But resist the urge to pull the trigger too quickly.  I have found that this works for me, because I can be very hot-tempered and opinionated.  But there are very few important issues (this one included) that will vanish from the radar in 12 hours, or even a week.  So if you're so apoplectic that you just can't respond -- bug out for the day (or night) and sleep on it.  Then come back and vanquish the enemy with an overwhelming display of your pure, brilliant, incandescent intellect.  ;)      

I meant that I do it on my blog, thats the point.  I would re-frame my statement for this forum as:

"I love to engage in frustrating the arguments of liberals with creative and constructive dialog"

hehehehe....

I would expect them to if they are engaged in the real world of foreign NOC work.  We are talking about cover that intends to keep bad people from finding out.  Its not cover so that journalists won't get a good story.  And clearly the first conduit is through the spouse.  In the real world of cover (is that a oxymoron?) you are intending that no one would have a way of penetrating if you came under suspicion.  The spouse is first on the list.  If she were concerned about her work being ever dangerous in the future, she would have never told.  And that I actually believe as from everything I hear she was a exemplary agent.

Are you know, or have you ever been married?

"now", not "know".

Well, the CIA is in something of a state these days; neglect of HUMINT in favor of COMINT has made it a lot less effective in the War on Terror than it might be. There's also the political aspect: while I think it's a mistake to describe the CIA as "left-wing", there seems to be a strong institutional animus against "neocon" foreign policy. In general, the CIA seems to prefer stability, containment, playing off our pet dictators against each other, and so forth, and they've pushed back very hard against the Administration, mostly by leaking. Hence the current disdain for them on the right.

<<<Why didn't Scooter just take the 5th and resign ?  I  doubt that he could have been charged if he didn't testify.>>>>>

Ok, first off, apologies if this has already been answered, as I haven't read all 250 comments or whatever, but:

1. You can't claim the Fifth when you testify before a Grand Jury; and
   
2. Claiming the Fifth implies you have something incriminating to hide, so under the circumstances, what could possibly be gained if there truly is a desire for transparency, as President Bush said there is?

For my money, Libby should clearly rot in jail, as should Cheney, probably. Bush is probably not directly culpable, but Rove... well, I have a sneaking feeling his story's not over.

From Fitzgerald's press conference:

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

We can split hairs about whether Plame was covert or not, and what law may have been broken by outing her. What I'm interested in, is why did they out her? Earlier you answered that question ("why did they bring Plame into this") with this:

Because Plame suggested her hubby (that would be Wilson) for the trip and her hubby (Wilson, again) lied about that to anyone who was willing to listen.

I'm not sure if we know definitively that Wilson lied about this (please cite sources if you have them), but even if he did, is that sufficient grouonds for outing a classified (if not covert)CIA agent to Novak and other reporters? Is that acceptable? Why didn't they just show evidence that Wilson was wrong about the yellowcake claim being bogus?

the issues. That is how our system works. My point is still true. One rarely gets indicted for perjury when one tells the truth. One thing you do know is that either he lied or the Vice President lied.

...The Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause must be respected [by a grand jury]. Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)....

http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment05/01.html

On your second point, Libby in my opinion had two choice's, take the 5th or jump head first into an easy perjury trap.  

Without the grand jury seeing more likely than not evidence that the crime was committed. Based on your logic, though, I see no reason for ordinary trials.

I found your site in a roundabout way today, via NIF, and just now realized you are the same Carlos.

Point is, your blog is excellent! You should keep the link in your signature here.

evidence pointing to who did it.  In case you missed it, Frits said he couldn't charge Libby with the underlining crime becouse he couldn't prove intent. A lot a prosecutors are saying he doesn't even have a stong case with charges he brought      

In the case of murder, was it 1st or 2nd degree? Was it negligent homicide?

In the case of disclosure of classified information, was there motive/knowledge/intent to satisfy the requirements of the Espionage Act? Or is this a violation that simply should result in a loss of clearances (and a job)?

There have been many innocents who not only have been indicted but have been convicted. However looking at the indictment if I was a betting man I would say that Libby is going to be convicted. Seeing as Fitzpatrick has decided he cannot prove the outing charge if Libby had told the truth (unless the other 6 people are lying) or had taken the 5th he would not have been indicted.

if you are so concerned about government secrets.  Why don't you go after Kerry who revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent on the floor of the US Senate.  Or you could go after Harry Ried who slammed an Appellate Judicial Nom by referring to his secret FBI background on the floor of the US Senate.

I said that Fitzgerald concluded that they (they being the prosecutor's office) knew her affiliation with the CIA was classified. They also knew that Libby released that classified information. The question is if Libby did it knowingly and apparently there was not enough evidence that he did. But that does not signify that Fitzgerald concluded there was no wrongdoing surrounding the leak itself, it just shows that there was not enough evidence for him to believe he could get a conviction. Here's exactly what Fitzgerald said:

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

"The damage (done by Libby) wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us."

what you believe is right. You have no honor. You should feel shame but that would require some integrity of which you obviously have none and is also a personal moral failing

You have not figured it out yet, but every major media organization has:

Valerie Plame was not outed in a criminal way.

Every MSM organ participating in keeping Judith Miller out of jail made the legal case in court that Valerie Plame was outed manyyears before.

Additionally, her job functions and place of employment put her beyond the NOC act.

That the editorial agendas of the MSM include obscuring and covering up this so as to continue to feed Plame fever is rather sick.

What I'm interested in, is why did they out her?

You are, once again, asserting facts not yet placed into evidence.

I'm not sure if we know definitively that Wilson lied about this (please cite sources if you have them)

Good Lord man, are you not capable of doing any research on your own?

Since apparently not, why don't you start with Wilson's NY Times OpEd piece and his interview that same week with Timmy R on MTP and see how many times in subsequent interviews after that he either infers that the VP's office authorized his trip and/or that his wife had nothing to do with it and go from there.

If you can stand it, you can always read all about it in his book.

Why didn't they just show evidence that Wilson was wrong about the yellowcake claim being bogus?

Uh, maybe because the CIA/MI-6 did not want him too - because that would, gosh gee, be revealing classified information?

There are plenty of links for that - I'll leave it up to you to find them.  I don't tolerate laziness from my kids; I'm sure as heck not going to tolerate it from you.

Long and short: you are wasting my time.

For someone who has to date provided precisely one link to an outdated piece of information in this entire conversation and has otherwise been limited to regurgitation of Known Facts™, you ask much and offer very, very, pitifully little in return.

You seem this morning no less the garden-variety baby hack you seemed last evening.  You're going to have to do much, much better if you want anyone to take you serously around here.

Out.

refer to my first Saturday post.  It seems ,seems, that he lied under oath.  I don't dispute that at least for now.  I would go even further and say it doesn't look good for Scooter.  But search if you will other related and probably non criminal factors; a totally rogue and stunningly incompetent CIA, a pathological liar named Joe Wilson [obstruction of justice charges anywhere,Senate testimony, I wonder} A media that deliberately witheld or alterd information,etc.  I do know that we would live in a much worse country if police forces in general and DA's in particular had the kind of power and long leash that "Honey" Fitz has.  Civil libertarians take note.  Wait, Ronnie Earl already has that power.  A very fine mess overall.

that it defied credulity to think that Scooter didn't know what he was doing with that information leaking it to reporters.

By my count, Ronnie Earle had to go to how many was it, three grand juries before he could get the indictments he wanted against Tom Delay?  And let's see now, this is the second grand jury Saint Fitzgerald is going to after TWO YEARS of investigation in an attempt to get more incitements. Doesn't sound like the grand jury was willing to bring many incitements after that two years of investigation work now does it? Does anyone see a pattern here?   THIS is the launching of the Democratic campaign strategy for the next election cycle.  They are running on the corruption issue and this is a coordinated attack.  Some will say it is simply coincidence, but that kind of confidence would get you whacked in the mafia where they say if it looks like a duck and  walks like a duck . . .

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

And...

That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

Fitzgerald makes it clear that there could be a crime, that he might not believe he "could prove" it in court, and that it might even be possible that he should not prove it.

JustMe's assertion--

I think you are right about this one    

if he had even a smidge of evidence to indict on the actual Plame outing, he would have done it.

--is obviously at odds with what Fitzgerald said in the press conference.  What Fitzgerald made clear was that if he couldn't prove a crime (even if he believed one was committed) he would not talk about it, not speculate about it, and not mention any names.  This is a responsible standard, although it may be frustrating to those who want a more complete picture.

He would be set for life!  Multimillion book deals, thousand dollar a crack speaking engagements, the trial of the century.  Heckfy yes he would have, all partisanship aside.

This flies in the face of virtually everything people have said about Fitzgerald.  From all that I have read about the man, your suggestion is a complete misreading of him, his character, and his approach to his job.

I really feel sorry for you coolaid drinkers about now.  I don't doubt you are feeling sick that the majority of Americans support our military efforts to prevent more attacks on us.  I don't doubt that you feel sick because you are about to loose the ability to make law from the Supreme Court.  I don't doubt that you know how most of us feel about Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry and those who are the faces of the Democratic Party.  

If I were in your shoes, I would be so embarrassed that I would feel sick too.  Here is a solution:stop drinking the coolaid, start living in the real world, and vote Republican.  Either that or become accustomed to that sick feeling.  

...that before anyone can be accused of murder, there must be evidence of the crime having been committed.  Since there is none in this case, case closed.  Or the case should have been closed, but of course, this isn't about outing a CIA agent, it's about the new Democratic campaign strategy that the Republicans are corrupt and Ronnie Earle and Pat Fitzgerald are just the lead men in this little circus going into the next election cycle.

Here's news, this isn't going to work either.  It is apparent to everyone what is going on here.  

On the other hand it appears I misunderstood your point first.  So let me respond more correctly to that, first.

Yes, there are no indictments for the actual outing.  I will add, however, the word "yet".  I'll also point out that trying to cover up who outed is in a tenuous manner related to the outing as well.  The indictment states in plain language (paragraph 14) that Libby told Miller of Plame's status and position well before Novak was told.  The indictment makes it plain (paragraph 13) that Libby knew that discussing the issue publicly would fall afoul of classification issues and the CIA.  There appears to be sufficient meat in the indictment itself for some sort of improper release of classified data charge.  Yes, this raises the question of why not.  (Two possibilities:  he's not quite got enough, he's got enough and wants to use it to flip Libby.)  Yes, it does not say Plame is covert.  On the other hand, add a statement from the CIA that she was at that time and you've got enough paragraphs to bring IIPA charges.

Your misundertanding of my point is not that folk should be damaged on mere allegations, but rather that coverups have consequences that can and have brought down previous presidencies.  I thought you were calling the charges trivial - smoke with no substance.  I was pointing out that they are hard, solid crimes.  People commit perjury to hide what they consider more significant issues.  Often, if the "only" indictment that arrives is perjury, it means the perp succeeded in his obstruction - the underlying crime has been so confused or hidden that even if charges can be successfully charged they are unlikely to result in conviction.  Thus, to what seemed to be a complaint of "only" perjury my response of "so what".

Hillary said she couldn't recall over 200 times in her Whitewater testimony and Bill used it 265 times in his testimony.

and obstucting the investigation.

OK, that was funny.  But perjury is how Alger Hiss went down (no I don't think it's the same) and is on the books as a crime for a reason.

something of substance about a crime or to deny someone their rights. Here, this jerk spent 2 years and couldn't identify a crime so he manufactures a crime of perjury.

because he clearly doesn't see it that way.

It seems that everyone accuses everyone else of "drinking the Kool-Aid."

I understand the reference to Jonestown, but it seems that unlike wingnut or moonbat, it really doesn't make it clear who is being insulted, or for what reason.

Personally, I'd prefer to be called a moonbat than a Kool-Aid drinker. And on DKos, many people call me a wingnut.

It's actually kind of a statement on the current state of politics in America that by being an opinionated moderate/centrist (although definitely more left than right), I get labeled as an extremist by people from both sides of the spectrum.

I'm liberal, but I am not a hypocrite. If these things actually happened, then they should be investigated.

doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

I think on re-reading your responses that you are concerned primarily with the law-enforcement aspects of the case rather than the political ones. If I'm correct, then fair enough.

I understand that obtaining a perjury conviction creates some presumption that a different crime is being covered up. And that the fact of perjury, through obscuring elements of the prosecutor's case, may impair his ability to obtain a conviction on the original issue. So in a funny and imprecise way, our system gives the prosecutor a way to punish wrongdoing through the back-door, as it were. Reminds me of jailing Al Capone for tax evasion.

But as long as we leave all of that in the realm of criminal procedure, it's ok with me.

What I'm concerned about is that your argument opens the door to a presumption that Libby's perjury indictment ipso facto establishes some broader culpability that goes back to the War on Terror. The Democrats and their amplifiers in the news media are not bound by rules of evidence or criminal procedure, and they have not been shy about connecting the dots.

If you think all of this is a red herring, well I respect that. But I really don't care much about the legalities of the case. I think the political aspects are far more interesting than the fate of Scooter Libby.

Adapted without permission from a posting made to Kos earlier today (profanity redacted):



Karl Rove, Ari and Dick Cheney... in court... under oath! oh man this is ... awesome!

    Interesting, interesting point.

    Keeps it all in the public eye for a long time

    Lets the public get a close look at the ugliest of the cabal players--both physically and personally

    All taking place before mid-term elections

    How desperately will the cabal work to keep that trial from happening?

    Can they get it postponed?

    Do they lean on Libby to plead and take jail time?

    Do they brave the fallout from a pardon, with so many years of term left for Bush?

We can expect Libby to get a fair trial from the judge and jury. But as you can see, the fight against the Bush Administration will be prosecuted on very different ground. Facts, evidence and procedure don't matter a whole lot here!

I agree, which is why it's relatively hard to prove as well.  

Look I'm not agin ye.  I think Fitz is looking for a scalp to justify keeping Miller in the big house 80 plus days.  

But conservatives will lose in a political fight over how perjury is not important this time because of... What we need is a dismissal or acquittal.  If you're right we'll get one (after all Jonnie Cochrans dead).  

But I fought long and hard with folks (I'm a rock-ribbed Republican in yellow-dog Arkansas)who had a thousand reasons why Ken Starr was wrong to go after Clinton's perjury.  I am not going to go there, and IMHO suggest doing so won't help Libby or conservatisim.  

Wait for the Courts to act, if it's as bogus as some on this thread seem to think, we'll clean-up politically.  And it is the only way Libby can be vindicated peresonally at this point.

what I heard Fitz say was that he couldn't get to the underlying crime because Scooter lied.

If you read the indictment, it's quite interesting. He is letting people know who talked - identifying them by job description. It's also interesting that he included this in page 8 of the text:

22. On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discused with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.

I can't figure out why that's in the indictment. It does not seem to have anything directly to do with the charges, or, is just extra, unnecessary information. I think he's going after Cheney.

In the case of release of classified information, there may be a felony violation. There also may be a non-criminal failure to follow proper procedure.

In this case, the nature/degree of the violation will decide which legal statutes of procedures apply. This is particlarly true in the case of negligence.

If I drive with a 0.07 blood alcohol level, I am not violating the law in a particular jurisdiction. If I drive with a 0.08, I am violating the law and may put myself in serious legal jeopardy. Because of the way the statute is written, an arbitrary threshold defines when the line of criminality is crossed.

you've perfectly predicted the Democratic spin cycle on this one. In fact, as I type, Chris Dodd is pressing the same "It was Cheney" meme on FNS.

To which I say to the Dems: "Knock yourselves out."  Unless Libby testifies that VP Cheney instructed him to intentionally "out" Plame to Matt Cooper with the intent to cause harm (which he won't because, despite the Dems' wildest fantasies, it didn't happen), then the VP is in the clear.

When did I develop ESP? It's kind of creepy.

Don't you think Libby will just hang tight and wait for the pardon? He can drag the trial out so if he has to go to prison it won't be for long. I suspect that's the strategy and he is not going to give anything up. On the other hand, even a year in prison is not a pleasant thought for anyone, much less a 55-year-old man used to having creature comforts.

is that this whole affair is nothing more than the administration (primarily the office of the VP) was frustrated by the respectability being conferred by the MSM to Joe Wilson authority to speak on the matter, and the distortions he was subsequently passing off as facts.  And, along with their response to his allegations, they wanted to convey that he was in know way an expert in the field, and wouldn't even have been on the trip but for his wife's employment with the Agency.  In doing so, Libby unintentionally revealed a piece of classified information, the sloppy revelation of which he didn't want to take responsibility for so he attempted to make it look like he'd heard the info from other reporters (for all I know, he may have convinced himself that he did).  And so Libby won't hang tight (because there's nothing to hang tight about).  He'll simply admit that he made a mistake, that he talks to dozens(?) of reporters off-the-record every day, and he screwed up the SOE in his GJ testimony.  He'll have his security clearance revoked for 5 years, receive some other slap on the wrist, and that will be the end of it (with the exception of the Dem extreme left, who will insist to their dying days that Bush outed the Wilsons in an attempt on their lives).

.  In doing so, Libby unintentionally revealed a piece of classified information,

I just don't know how plausible that is(or I'm not sure if you're saying it's plausible, or merely that that will be Libby's defense, in which case I believe you are correct). From the indictment:

As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

That is referring to SF 312, which Libby signed. The underlying implication is that Libby lied about how he came across this information because he knew it was classified.

Point 2: I think you are saying that Libby will plead guilty (is that right?) and just say it was a mistake. There are sentencing guidelines that go along with those charges that involve prison time. For instance, time served can be halved for a guilty plea.

That also presupposes Fitzgerald's willingness to accept a plea bargain. A deal is offered in exchange for the defendent giving something  up. The circumstances for that happening, as I see it, would be Libby offering him something big; otherwise, what is Fitzgerald's motivation to deal?

Therein is the dilemma. A trial will be a circus with at least Rove and Cheney called to testify under oath. I cannot see them letting that happen. But to avoid that, Libby either has to plead guilty or negotiate a plea bargain.

put Rove and Cheney on trial, but give it up 'cause it just ain't gonna happen (for the very good reason that they apparently have committed no crime).

"The underlying implication is that Libby lied about how he came across this information because he knew it was classified."  That's the implication, now let's see the proof.

I'm no lawyer, but the way I see it Libby doesn't have to "give up" anything.  His case is pretty strong, so his leverage with Fitzgerald is, "You go to trial and you'll lose!"  This is not Martha Stewart.  In that case, Ms Stewart talked to one stock broker about one very specfic transaction.  Libby talks to dozens of reporters off-the-record every day.

Additionally, in my mind, Libby has nothing to "give up" because there's "no there, there."  Or perhaps you believe the VP intentionally told Libby (in the presence of a third party) to release the name of Ms Plame in an attempt to place the Wilsons' lives in mortal danger.  Based on the facts currently in evidence, good luck proving that one, even IF Libby said it was true (I presume you're familiar with the insufficiency of co-conspirator testimony).

I don't know if this will ultimately involve a plea on some or all of the charges, or will eventually go to court, but I doubt Libby gets any serious jail time (actually, I doubt he gets any at all).

as to how a plea bargain works. Prosecutors accept negotiated deals in exchange for something. Libby's options are:

* exercise his right to trial. I do not share your opinion that Libby's case "is pretty strong." Given Fitzgerald's past history in being very methodical in building his case, I believe the opposite. Regardless of whether or not you agree with me, Libby risks going to prison if he elects to go to trial: 10-16 months for a guilty plea and as high as 51-63 months if found guilty after a trial. For example, a level 14 obtruction of justice coul be reduced to a level 12 for acceptance of responsibility. It is also a possibility that more details will emerge during a trial that would add more points on to the sentencing guidelines. The judge, of course, does not have to stick to the guidelines, but only consider then, and may go higher or lower.

As I'm sure you do, I only want to see justice done, rather than a wish for person(s) to be found innocent or guilty.

One thing I do not understand from your post, is, in what scenario does Libby escape jail time? The only way I see it is if he is proven innocent on each count and, based on the indictment, that seems highly unlikely.

When I was in the army my neighbors didn't know what I did.  So what?  I didn't know my neighbors.  The friends I had to my house for social get togethers did.  They either worked with me or had family aware of the kind of work I did.

And because I drove to a particular building I worked at on Ft. Bragg it was no secret what kind of unit I belonged to.  And if I wrote a shoddy report laughed out of committee by democrats and republican alike, and if I went on to lie to people that my VP sent me on this "mission", and if I was indeed sent because of cronyism on my wife's part, and she was classified as a non secret CIA employee (as all Langley staff are as they drive right through the front gate), then I'm glad someone in the whitehouse set the story straight without jeapordizing anyone.  Too bad Libby felt he needed to lie (if he even did.  Fitzgerald says we should all take a breath and let him have his day in court).

as to Libby's options:

• exercise his right to trial (explained above)
  
• plead out. But to negotiate a plea bargain he would have to "give up" something to Fitzgerald to make it attractive and compelling to accept Libby's plea bargain. If there is nothing for Libby to "give up", there is no reason for Fitzgerald to accept a plea bargain. Fitzgerald could also accept a plea bargain if he believes upon discovery that one or more of the charges will be difficult to prove. Given Fitzgerald's prosecutorial history, these seems unlikely.

Ok, I'll bite.

Clinton did no jail time and he perjured himself over (literaly) 100 times denying recolections of things later shown to be fact.

Or how about Sandy Berger.  He hid documents in his clothing and left with them and destroyed them.  He seemed to get off lightly to me.

I assume that under equal protection Libby will be treated in a simular way?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Legally, each of those incidents is not equal to the other(s).

in seeing "justice done", how's about you stop speculating that a crime has been committed (which a professional prosecutor has been unable to uncover after 22-months of investigation), and I'll stop asking for your proof?

BTW -- would you care to respond to this request?

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/29/0256/9412/115#115

How is that a wrong thing to do?  I don't know either way and neither do you. By the way, Fitzgerald has stated the investigation is not over, so your comment is speculation also.

between the two of us.  When I don't "know" one way of the other, I withhold judgment.  It's a fairly accepted judicial philosophy, more commonly expressed as "innocent until proven guilty" -- perhaps you've heard of it?  You, apparently, feel no such forebearance.

Yes, I probably went a bit overboard, in that the State Department is more pure in its liberal socialism.  The CIA undoubtedly is a broader mix by nature.  And I was glossing over its connections to many different parts of government.  Its a multi-headed hydra, but not all liberal.  Good correction.  But I am not sure that they can even be  thought of as a single entity.  The undercurrent direction under Tenet was not cohesive enough to show that one of the Agencies goals was undercutting the Administration.  But there was a quite few converts when it looked like he took a bullet for the Admin.  Thats why I am in favor of cleaning house, which Goss is possibly having trouble at.

My reply was to long and fun so I made it a article:

The Inflamitory: Legality of Leaking: Carlos Opines

Hope you like it, I rarely even half agree with libs on security issues, but we get a bit closer with this one.

I think we can dispense with the creative labeling.  Its silly.  What position do you think a centrist has?  In my experience, and no implication as to whatever you consider yourself:

Moderate = Liberal

Centrist = Liberal

You could argue about grades of liberalism, but your still a liberal, and not as a dirty word, just as a political philosophy.

The Inflamitory: The Illegitimacy of Political Moderates

And I am in no way calling you a extremist.  I'll take Gatorade please.

I don't think I misread Fitz.  Very competent, very aggressive, overzealous.  No matter what he says, there was no underlying crime or he would have proved it.  He needs to make it sound serious, because all he has is five unrelated counts.

Your logic is bent in that 'anything' could be a crime.  Leaking your milk on the sidewalk could be a crime.  He has just presided over what should have been the investigation of his career and now its degenerated into a Witch Hunt.  My comments on the book deal are sarcasm.  I don't think I misread him at all.

What will you think when nothing else comes of this and you realize that he had a first amendment fight with a major journalist and had her dramatically thrown in the clinky, just to get perjury charges?  

Because, there is no law covering the stupid leak allegation that liberals and the MSM keep spouting.  Fitz is just covering his butt in the quote you quote, and he better, because the media can turn on you fast.  And if you do your homework, you can come to no other conclusion (again read the Amici Curiae in the Miller case).  Unless he is just an incompetent prosecutor, and that I do not believe.

This is an odd comment, especially in light of the very prominent conviction of Martha Stewart, for lying about something that wasn't, itself, a crime.

Are we to believe that you were among the "Free Martha" crowd?

I'm very confused by this comment:

Valerie Plame was not outed in a criminal way.

Are you saying this as a matter of semantics -- i.e., that becuase no crime was charged none was committed?

Or are you saying it out of some sort of omnicience -- i.e., that you know the intent of the actors involved and can tell us that they lacked such criminal intent?

Or, are you saying -- which it sounds like you are saying -- that Valerie Plame's status with the CIA has been conclusively determined to be NOT, NOC or her cover has previously been blown?  I'm not so sure that the known facts support that conclusion, unless I'm missing something.

The indictment seems to say a few things, broken down to the bare minimum of facts:

1.  Plame worked for the CIA.
   
   
2.  Plame's employment status was "classified."
   
   
3.  Cheney knew #1.
   
   
4.  Cheney told Libby #1.
   
   
5.  Libby told Cooper #1.

I don't recall seeing anything in the indictment that said that Plame was not NOC.

Also, Fitzgerald's comments included the following:

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

So, I'm not sure what the angle of your assertion is.  Help me out with what I've missed.

Kerry

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/14/225202.shtml

Ried

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050513-122042-3194r.htm