Bottom line: The White House leaked classified information to the media, while a member of the White House staff lied under oath and obstructed justice. And they’re supposed to be the national security party.
Any minute now Dick Cheney will be telling us how Scooter Libby was “outside the loop”.
Top Cheney aide Libby indicted, quits post
The vice president s chief of staff, I. Lewis Scooter Libby Jr., was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements in the CIA leak investigation, a politically charged case that casts a harsh light on President Bush s push to war.
Libby, 55, resigned and left the White House.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the CIA leak case is about how the White House both manufactured and manipulated intelligence” to boost its case for the Iraq war.
Reid also said Libby’s indictment shows the Bush administration tried to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.”
Senator John Kerry, meanwhile, is calling the C-I-A leak case evidence of White House corruption at the very highest levels.” The former presidential candidate says that’s far from the honor and dignity” Bush pledged to restore when he was elected five years ago.
If you want ethics in government, don’t vote Republican. If you want to trust your government not to leak classified information to journalists for political gain, certainly don’t vote for Republicans.
>> Statements on Assistant to the President and VP Chief of Staff Indicted
>> Unanswered Questions
>> According to right-wing blogs, perjury related to the leaking of national security information is no big deal. Where were these guys 10 years ago when the Republicans thought alleged perjury was a hanging offense?
>> “Remember, I. Lewis Libby doesn’t just work for the Vice President.”
>> Libby replacment also aided leaking of classified data
More: Bush claimed in his statement that Libby “worked hard on behalf of the American people”. Before or after he leaked classified data for political gain, or before or after he lied under oath in a criminal investigation? Somebody should ask.
>> DNC:
“This is a sad day for America.
“Beyond the evidence that the White House manipulated the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, a group of senior White House officials not only orchestrated efforts to smear a critic of the war, but worked to cover up this smear campaign. In so doing, they ignored the rule of law, endangering our national security and the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our nation’s security. I. Lewis Libby was a part of this internal White House group.
“This is not only an abuse of power, it is an un-American abuse of the public trust. As Americans, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to a higher standard. We cannot fear dissent. We cannot fear the truth. And we cannot tolerate those who do.
“More importantly, we can’t ignore the glaring questions this case has raised about the rationale the Bush Administration used to send us to war in Iraq, a war that continues. American soldiers are still in harms way. Over 2,000 brave Americans have lost their lives, thousands of American soldiers have been wounded, and thousands of American families have made the ultimate sacrifice. Still, the President has no plan and no exit strategy. And still he hasn’t answered the question, what are we doing in Iraq and when can our troops come home?
“President Bush faces a serious test of leadership; will he keep his pledge to hold his Administration to high ethical standards and give the American people what they deserve, and will he answer to the American people for these serious missteps?”
>> Republicans Try to Change the Subject
>> Perspective:
Reacting to the suggestion that Rove’s lack of an indictment today is somehow “good news” for the White House, Meacham said that’s the equivalent of saying “I don’t beat my wife anymore.”
>> I gotta say it’s the height of hackery for Glenn Reynolds to look into the whole case and solely take issue with Nicholas Kristof’s opinion columns and not Judith Miller’s administration-penned propaganda missives disguised as “news reporting”.
>> Eli uncovers Bush’s moving target for ethics, or his administration’s lack thereof
>> Hello, HuffPo readers. More bombthrowing here.
Can we please go back to the good old days when we just had White House blowjobs, instead of the ‘blowback’ from Administration black ops?
Does anyone think the “pitcher” never really intended to ‘bean’ the batter?
It’s interesting, because with Bill Clinton, perjury was the whole case (not that he was convicted, mind). Everyone knew he was lying because he wanted to hide the fact that he’d been screwing around on his wife. In this case, perjury is covering actual serious crimes: they knew Iraq really wasn’t a nuclear threat, so they had to totally discredit anyone who challenged that. And now that this is all coming into public view, how do they challenge it? By running the only play they know: smear their opponent yet again. These bastards have got to go.
Who can forget InstaCracker’s famous “OKAY, I’M OFFICIALLY PRONOUNCING THE PLAME SCANDAL BOGUS.”?
Betcha Scooter doesn’t think it so bogus this afternoon.
I think the Republicans playing this off as “no big deal” is patronizing to the American people. It’s a crappy political move in my opinion.
There’s a fire in the attic.
These GOoPers are finally getting their come-uppance and it’s all their own doing. They made this problem for themselves out of nothing. It was totally optional on their part, and I am referring to outing Plame, not their war itself. The legacy of the Cheney Administration is being written, and it’s not pretty.
More observations on what George Bush had to say here
Today Glenn was saying it’s the mountain that produced a mouse. Later he upgraded it to a large rabbit, which gave way to much discussion about rodents. So he is still in denial. That guy has mostly avoided the whole thing, wishing it would go away, claiming it was all too complicted for him.
In order to serve in the executive branch of the federal government all officials are required to take an oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Nowhere therein do executive branch officials swear to lie under oath to a grand jury or federal investigators when questioned about their alleged conduct in leaking classified information to people not authorized to possess the information.
Nowhere therein do executive branch officials swear to break the law to silence their critics.
Nowhere therein do executive branch officials swear to obstruct justice during the course of federal investigations.
Let us keep in mind what Porter Goss, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said during the debate over the articles of impeachment of Bill Clinton when he represented Florida as a GOP member of Congress:
GOSS: Thank you. We are all public servants here today representing our duty. My beginning in public service outside the bounds of my immediate hometown began when I was appointed to a vacant county commission seat. The seat was vacant because a good commissioner committed a single act of perjury, lying to a grand jury about a sexual escapade to protect a recently married friend. He lost his job, his reputation, his paycheck, his pension, his rights and his freedom. He went to jail.
The judge noted that those in public service have a higher standard of behavior, and that telling the truth is fundamental to public service in our free land. The sentence was considered just in my district. I will support the articles of impeachment.”
The charges against Libby are just. The GOP must be consistent and support the prosecution of all persons involved in the leak to defame and unmask Valerie Plame Wilson, an undercover operative in the clandestine service of the United States. To do otherwise as the President has done and provide a glowing endorsement of perjury and deception is hypocritical and endangers our national security.
Maybe I’m just naive but why do you call him “InstaCracker?”
My God you people are stupid. Just how in the fuck did anyone “defame” Valerie Wilson? Her lying ass of a husband has defamed just about anyone he could think of in the Bush admin and lied repeatedly about his “mission” in Niger.
If libby lied to the Grand Jury, his ass should be tossed in the clink, however, a certain former President, also a known perjurer, should have been tossed in as well. We know that you LLL’s all supported that didnt you?
Fucking hypocrites.
Nobody would have been charged with obstruction of justice, perjury or making false statements if Valerie Plame Wilson’s undercover identity had not been illegally compromised by top administration officials who knew to do so was a crime. But if you silly cons keep ignoring it, it will eventually go away, right?
Look Trevor, if Libby did indeed lie to the grand jury (and the trial will hopefully bring out the truth), then he deserves to be punished. I, in no way, excuse that kind of misconduct.
However, the liberal attempt to move the goal posts on blogs and in the media is transparent and disingenuous.
If Plame was indeed “outed” illegally, why isn’t someone charged with that crime?
My, my. Isn’t Van a bitter boy tonight?
He really should look up the term “defamation” in a legal text. If he did, he’d know that’s probably what the Wilsons would pursue in a civil case. “defamation” doesn’t just mean saying bad things about someone; it also refers to actions which might cause potential harm to someone in their career.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear Van. Nowhere in the oath did it ever say the Administration didn’t have the right to rebutt whatever claims were made by their critics. They could have simply done that on the record. Nowhere in all the fulminations on the right has anybody simply stated why outing an undercover operative was necessary.
“The GOP must be consistent and support the prosecution of all persons involved in the leak to defame and unmask Valerie Plame Wilson, an undercover operative in the clandestine service of the United States.”
I agree. I hope Libby does hard time for outing a clandestine operative.
Oh wait. No one was charged with that crime. But if you silly libs keep repeating it, it will eventually be true, right?
What’ll be interesting is to see how the leak case plays in the Middle East in the coming days and weeks.
A headline about criminal indictments against people who attack war opponents isn’t going to win the Bush administration any friends there — and it’s not going to help in the “hearts and minds” campaign.
http://middleamericachronicle.blogspot.com/2005/10/forget-washington-hows-it-playing-in.html
For rightisright, there’s also this quote from Mr. Fitzgerald:
“And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now, if you’re asking me what his motives were, I can’t tell you; we haven’t charged it. So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.”
So, maybe a reason that there’s no charge yet on the blowing cover for Mrs Wilson is because Libby’s lying kept Mr Fitzgerald from getting all the information he needs to make that final determination.
Trevorwells’s reason is also important. The 1983 law is fairly restrictive in the number of specific conditions to be met before someone has broken “all” of that law. Much room for a technicality to allow someone to meet the letter of the law while violating the spirit of it.
We’re not done yet. There’s another grand jury seated for Fitzgerald’s cases, and Rove is still under investigation. We’ll have to wait and see.
CS
“Oh wait. No one was charged with that crime. But if you silly libs keep repeating it, it will eventually be true, right?”
RIR, I don’t need to repeat it and neither does anyone else. As others above have pointed out Libby is being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice because his statements to the FBI and the grand jury impeded the investigation into the initial allegation. Fitzgerald made it plain as day that Plame was undercover and that Libby was intimately involved in her outing but someone threw sand in the umpire’s face so there’s no way to prove intent — yet. Any suggestion that these charges are evidence that no initial crime was committed is first of all ignoring the fact that Fitzgerald hasn’t closed his investigation yet and second ignoring Fitzgerald’s own statements about the serious damage that Libby’s dissembling did to the investigation. His baseball analogy said it all for me. Libby threw sand in the umpires face and that’s what he’s being charged with.
As far as I’m concerned every conservative who spouted off saying, “No one said Plame, they said “Wilson’s wife”; she was never undercover; this is the “criminalization of politics” can presently suck my huge liberal d***. You guys put it on the line and made asses of yourselves to defend this administration and once again they let you down. Suckers.
Right is Right is once again pretending perjury and obstruction are not actual crimes; that Libby merely was confused and forgot a few things while talking to a GJ.
Perhaps numbnuts ought to read Patrick Fitzgerald’s comments on the matter:
QUESTION: Just to go back to your comments about the damage that was done by disclosing Valerie Wilson’s identify, there are some critics who have suggested that she was not your traditional covert agent in harm’s way, that she was working, essentially, a desk job at Langley.
Just to answer those critics, can you elaborate on, aside from the fact that some of her neighbors may now know that she was — and the country, for that matter — that she was a CIA officer, what jeopardy, what harm was there by disclosing her identity?
FITZGERALD: I will say this. I won’t touch the specific damage assessment of what specific damage was caused by her compromise — I won’t touch that with a 10-foot pole. I’ll let the CIA speak to that, if they wish or not.
I will say this: To the CIA people who are going out at a time that we need more human intelligence, I think everyone agrees with that, at a time when we need our spy agencies to have people work there, I think just the notion that someone’s identity could be compromised lightly, to me compromises the ability to recruit people and say, “Come work for us, come work for the government, come be trained, come invest your time, come work anonymously here or wherever else, go do jobs for the benefit of the country for which people will not thank you, because they will not know,” they need to know that we will not cast their anonymity aside lightly.
FITZGERALD: And that’s damage. But I’m not going to go beyond that.
“Right is Right is once again pretending perjury and obstruction are not actual crimes..”
I am sorry Jadegold, but could you please point out where I typed or insinuated that?
Did it come from the statement below?
“…if Libby did indeed lie to the grand jury (and the trial will hopefully bring out the truth), then he deserves to be punished. I, in no way, excuse that kind of misconduct.”
Unlike most people here, I am not a partisan hack. I despise ALL politicians
I do, however, admit to holding my nose and voting Republican all the time.
Bro Right:
The fact the nobody was charged with the technical crime of outing an intelligence asset is not the point. The statute is almost impossible to violate given what a prosecutor must prove about intent. That said, nobody has answered for me in a cogent fashion why all this B.S. happened in this irresponsible manner in the first place.
rightisright: Maybe because Libby wasn’t the one who committed that particular crime? He just helped it along and lied about who was ultimately responsible. Fitzgerald’s investigations are continuing. There is still the mysterious “Official A” to deal with. Remember, there were TWO senior administration officials cited in Novak’s original article.
My guess is that Fitzgerald is playing legal jujitsu with Libby. “Plead to these lesser crimes and give us the big fish”. “No”. “Fine, here is an indictment for perjury. Want to try that answer again?”. This is not the end of it.
The statute is almost impossible to violate given what a prosecutor must prove about intent.
Not hard at all to violate, but very hard to prosecute.
My only problem with this whole thing is the ridiculous pretense that Valerie Plame was some “007 type” agent whose ‘cover’ was blown by someone in the White House.
Do you know who blew her cover all over Washington, years before anyone in the White House? Joe “now you see uranium — now you don’t” Wilson, that’s who.
Clinton lied in a sexual harassment case, which has its own level of seriousness, which we could debate ’til the cows come home. But the level of seriousness was particular to the alleged offense.
Libby, and perhaps Rove, may have lied during an investigation of an entirely different matter. You have to believe that, if there was no violation of the “Identities Act”, then the lying, like Clinton’s, has its own particular level of seriousness.
If Plame’s identity as a CIA agent was fairly well known in Washington, D.C., because her husband has been a clown for several years, then that has an effect on the level of seriousness of the lying, does it not?
OK, then, cancel the order for the champagne and the party hats. See where this is by Thanksgiving — at least.
“Unlike most people here, I am not a partisan hack. I despise ALL politicians
I do, however, admit to holding my nose and voting Republican all the time.”
Well said. My feelings exactly. Although I must admit I did vote for Ed Rendell (D) for governor of Pa. I do remember vomiting profusely upon pulling the lever.
President Clinton was deceptive when quizzed about a private personal mistake of a sexual nature completely unrelated to the alleged crime the prosecutor was investigating (how you make the leap from land deal in Arkansas to tryst with an intern, I’ll never claim to understand) by a partisan prosecutor whose office leaked like a sieve. He was impeached by the far-right run House, but found not guilty by the Senate.
Scooter Libby revealed the name of an undercover operative to the press in order to get back at someone politically. When his activities led to a criminal inquiry by the Dept. of Justice, he lied multiple times under oath.
Only in the mind of the cons are the two incidents remotely similar.
I hope Libby does hard time for outing a clandestine operative.
Oh wait. No one was charged with that crime. But if you silly libs keep repeating it, it will eventually be true, right? >>>>
Mere perjury and obstructing justice are so 1990s, not worth the attention of the Rule of Law party these days. Wingers like RIR are telling us how underwhelmed they are with Libby’s indictment. As if the investigation has ended. Fitzgerald is keeping his cards close to his vest, even though he has issued his first 5 indictments. The man is not finished.
Meanwhile Bush, having run off to Camp David to consult with Jim Beam, now waits for another shoe to drop on the shambles of his presidency.
“If Plame s identity as a CIA agent was fairly well known in Washington, D.C., because her husband has been a clown for several years…”
Source this, or you’re just making it up.
CS
Frank_D:
One of my favorite parts of the Fitzgerald press conference came right at the beginning, where he clearly slapped down all the “everyone knew she was CIA” crap.
“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 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.”
Pretty clear. “Classified.” Thanks, Patrick Fitzgerald.
Are you giving me orders, Sunshine?
You lefties don’t source anything…
But, just for you Captain Sunshine:
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3345
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm
http://www.robinjuhl.homelinux.net/weblog/pivot/entry.php?id=217
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050725-085658-2637r.htm
(Media Matters says this article is untrue, but they don.t say how they know…)
You’re fucking hopeless Frank. One of the first things out of Fitzgerald’s mouth was that Wilson’s job at the CIA was classified and that her outing hurt national security. Why didn’t he charge anyone with the crime of outing her you ask? He told you: Because someone threw sand in the umpire’s face. Libby is the first to get indicted for perjury and obstruction. Rove is still under investigation. Fitz said it: He won’t stop until he gets all the answers. In the meantime, just keep up the spin. You’ll still look like an idiot in the end.
frameone: You really need to work on that vocabulary… Cursing like a drunken sailor doesn’t impress me in the slightest, but it does leave me with the impression that you’ve got serious anger management issues.
I don’t care if Fitzgerald’s (I don’t know him well enough to call him “Fitz” – do you?) statement was tattooed on his forehead. I don’t believe the knowledge that she worked at CIA hurt national security, because it hasn’t.
As to this “sand in the umpire’s face” nonsense — I ask you: what was it that was not seen? Are you, and your pal “Fritz” trying to say that you’re sure there was a crime committed, but you and he can’t prove it because Libby and Rove lied about it?
a) Did you ever hear of evidence?
b) Did you ever hear of the 5th Amendment?
c) Better yet, did you ever hear a prosecutor say, “Your Honor, he’s guilty, I know he is, but he just won’t admit it, so you should convict him of not admitting that he’s guilty of a crime we can’t prove he’s guilty of”?
By the way, you look like an idiot now. The difference between you and me is that I’m not foaming at the mouth to see these guys punished. I don’t care what happens to them. You’re doomed to be disappointed.
And, Oliver, you’re smarter than that. I wasn’t comparing the two cases except in one respect: That the reasons the lies were told, the motives behind the lies, are important.
What has yet to be proved is that Libby “revealed the name of an undercover operative … in order to get back at someone politically.”
I was saying that, unless and until you can prove that, you can’t prove that Libby’s lie was serious.
If I lie in court under oath to avoid a ticket for going through a red light, is that the same as lying in court to avoid going to jail for killing someone in a “hit and run”?
“If I lie in court under oath to avoid a ticket for going through a red light, is that the same as lying in court to avoid going to jail for killing someone in a hit and run ?’
You are dumb as a bag of rocks. Under the law, if you lie under oath it doesn’t matter why you lied or what crime you were lying to cover up. Lying under oath is a crime in itself. It’s a second wholly separate crime with it’s own punishments and burden of proof. A judge isn’t going to give a shit what you lied about or why you lied. A judge will only care that you lied.
Which brings us back to Fitzy. The indictments themselves are full of contextual evidence that confirms the fact that Wilson’s job was classified. Fer crying out loud, Fitzgerald said it directly not two minutes into the press conference and through out there after:
“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 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.”
If you’re going to sit there and assert again that her job wasn’t classified or that this isn’t about national security, I don’t know what to say. You essentially have to attack Fitzgerald’s credibility to argue otherwise now. Go ahead and attack him. Judging by your above comment about lying under oath I expect you won’t get very far.
Now why didn’t Fitzgerald charge Libby or anyone else with the crime of blowing her cover? Again, Fitzgerald explained this as plain as day: He can’t prove intent, which he believes is central to such a charge:
“I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I’ll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.”
His baseball analogy speaks to proving intent. It’s hard enough to prove intent when you have all the facts because it speaks to a state of mind. When someone starts lying to you, it becomes all the harder if not impossible. So Fitzgerald brought the indictments he knows he can prove in court: perjury and obstruction of justice. These are serious crimes, Frank. serious-hard-time-$1.5-million-fine crimes. Fitzgerald doesn’t have to prove intent or state of mind to make a perjury case. He just has to prove that Libby lied. It looks like he has ample evidence to do just that He doesn’t have to prove why Libby lied. The fact that he lied under oath is serious enough. If you want to argue otherwise take it up with the American legal code. Idiot.
What with all this conservative horshit flyin’ around here, I am reminded of just one thing.
Ken Starr spent 63 million dollars to force Bubba to lie about leakin’ on a dress, and FizZorro has spent 730 THOUSAND dollars and is well on his way to nailing a nest of prevaricators for their crimes which make Watergate look like a parlor game,
by a partisan prosecutor whose office leaked like a sieve.
Oh please. The White House was a source of a bunch of those leaks.
Scooter Libby revealed the name of an undercover operative to the press in order to get back at someone politically.
More nonsense. Plame’s status was deemed ‘classified’ simply because she worked at the CIA. And all one has to do is read the indictment to see that Libby did not reveal her name to endanger her or punish Wilson. He did it as part of a strategy to discredit Wilson and his completely misleading op-ed piece in the NY Times. Wilson turned it into a political issue, not the White House.
When his activities led to a criminal inquiry by the Dept. of Justice, he lied multiple times under oath.
No, he is ‘alleged’ to have lied under oath. We KNOW Clinton lied under oath.
Nice to know that you think lying under oath is ok as long as the circumstances warrant it.
Thus spake O’Brien. Or should I say Ampleforth? Haven’t made up my mind which one fits
frameone: I am not impressed by your belligerence. Your bullying language leaves me cold. I don’t need to be told what perjury is, least of all by someone with zero legal training or experience. I can assure you, although you will probably either not care, or not believe me, that I have plenty of both.
My point was that “perjury” as an action by someone, can be serious or not serious.
To return to my example, if you lie in Court about a traffic violation, the Judge will probably say, “Nice story – guilty!” If you lie about “hit and run”, the Judge will say, “You’re guilty of two things!” Get it, now, Perry Mason?
As to the baseball analogy, I stand by my argument. It is outrageous to attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defendant in a backhanded way.
Is this so hard to see as illogical: “They lied to us during an investigation into crimes we think they committed. We can’t prove they committed the crimes, because they lied to us, so their crime is — they lied to us about committing the crimes!”
I repeat:
a) Did you ever hear of evidence?
b) Did you ever hear of the 5th Amendment?
How positively Orwellian!
Well, well. Frank_D actually knows how to look up stuff, instead of making up stuff.
Source 1: So, being married to the woman automatically blows her cover? No mention of her job in these paragraphs. I even went to the National Review article linked in this page. Summary: “Well, I knew that she was a covert agent. ‘Somebody’ told me.” Especially given your swipe at Media Matters, that is unacceptable.
Source 2:One neighbor of the Wilsons, who live in the affluent Palisades community in Northwest, said that he “absolutely didn’t know” that Mrs. Plame was in the CIA.
“We understood her to work as an economist,” said David Tillotson, a 62-year old lawyer. He said he didn’t know that Mrs. Plame commuted to CIA headquarters, but added that “they wouldn’t be conducting an investigation if she hadn’t been covert.”
And there’s this quote from the former CIA agent:
“Mr. Rustmann said. ‘Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee.’ ”
Supposition, from someone who left the CIA seven years before Mrs Wilson supposedly (according to him) came in from cover. How would he know what her duties were? He was her manager “early in her career.” Again, unless CIA agents gossip about each other over cocktail weiners, how does he know this? It’s more speculation without fact.
Source 3 DOESN’T MENTION Wilson’s wife. Except in the title.
Source 4: An unsourced op-ed. No names, no facts. Again, “they don’t say how they know” (to quote you).
You’re welcome to try again. Why don’t you try and find some real newspaper articles, instead of more faith-based flights-of-fancy opinion pieces that you rightists treat as “facts?” (As long as you’re stereotyping me, I might as well offer you the same discourtesy.)
When Mrs. Wilson’s cover was exposed, the administration and the CIA both understood the severity of the action. So did the prosecutor who has spent two years of his life tracking down information related to this. So does Mr. Libby.
CS
Leo, the write up you linked to was very interesting…
Too bad he spoiled it with his ending:
So, if have this straight, liberals can exclude certain conservatives from the definition of “patriot,” but woebetide a conservative who tries the same thing against a left winger who demoralizes the troops with extremist anti – war talk, like ANSWER or MoveOn.
I did the best I could, considering that I found hundreds of articles that said her “cover” was blown, including dozens, if not hundreds, of references to the fact that she was “undercover” and “clandestine” (none mentioned a ‘licence to kill’).
The other day, I read that one, possibly two agents may have been killed, because her “cover” was blown. By whom, and why, was, of course, nowhere to be found.
Did I find a source that said, “We know her “cover” wasn’t blown because of ______ (fill in the blank)?” No, but I didn’t think I would. I did find a source that said her identity as a CIA agent was well known in higher Washington circles, but that was from a ‘blog, and you know how unreliable ‘blogs are…
… Oh, wait! This is a blog!
I did find this:
A common misconception is that CIA has agents, when they actually have case officers who work on getting information and finding others who can get them information. There are two types of officers in the DO:
* Field operations officers: The “spies” who recruit agents in other countries.
* Staff operations officers: Their support team [emphasis added -fd] in Langley, VA.
Love this stuff from Once upon a Time.
We need a superhero in our political wasteland;
The Mark of FitzZorro !!!!!
I am certain that Patrick Fitzgerald’s extraordinarily impressive press conference will not slow down the administration’s most zealous defenders, not even to the smallest degree. But it most assuredly should. The most strident hacks working so diligently on Bush’s behalf should read Fitzgerald’s remarks — and then be made to reread them numerous times, until the major points finally begin to sink in.
First, about Fitzgerald generally: what a wonderful, revivifying breath of bracing fresh air. Straightforward, always clear, always in command of the facts and the arguments, as brief and to the point as possible, and with a complete absence of personal grandstanding. All the plaudits we have been hearing about Fitzgerald were borne out in this crucial moment in the glare of national attention: here is a man focused on the facts and the law, and on the specific mandate he was given. Nothing else matters to him, and he seeks no personal gain or glory from performing his job — except for the gain or glory which are justly his, by virtue of the fact that he does perform his job, and does so with exceptional mastery. Would that more public servants — and politicians in particular — followed Fitzgerald’s model.
Jesus, Frank. Here I am getting excited about the possibility that maybe you were right and Plame’s cover was already blown. Then I read your articles, and they’re all horseshit. Did you think nobody was going to read your links, Frank?
Sorry. Forgot the link.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2005/10/truth-is-engine-and-it-was-done-to-all.html
That should have been:
Frameone spouts:
You are dumb as a bag of rocks. Under the law, if you lie under oath it doesn t matter why you lied or what crime you were lying to cover up. Lying under oath is a crime in itself.
Actually, you are soooooo wrong. Lying under oath, commonly known as perjury, only becomes a crime when the lie goes to a material fact.
“Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It’s not perjury if you honestly believe what you’re saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you’re under oath about. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s OK for “a wily witness [to] succeed in derailing the questioner–so long as the witness speaks the literal truth.” Disingenuousness and misleading (but not technically inaccurate) answers are not perjury. Finally, you’re off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement.”
http://slate.msn.com/id/1002007
I think the point has to do with the wasteland of political choices, and the averae Joe’s search for the Grail of courage mixed with integrity in our elected leaders. The final graph, which was your focus, adds that the critical mass of corruption seems to be those who are attracted to the white- collar opportunites for covert criminality presented by the Republican Party.
But now the back story& .If the Wilson/Plame s were so concerned about her cover, perhaps they could have been a bit more circumspect themselves? I would love to Valerie investigated for nepotism and fraud and she foist s her husband and his cheap-jack consultant firm off on the CIA as some sort of expert on Nigeria.
drpedro;
So, perjury is wrong, but it is mitigated by the fact that the victim and her husband drew attention to the scoundrels who outed her, therein lessening the wrong?
Further, the fact that Starr spent $60 million on what began as Whitewater, then devolved into Spermgate, should preclude any criticism from the Party being attacked? I think your predisposition of guilt and innocence would serve you well as an assistant to Starr. Not so well with Fitz.
Lying under oath is wrong……Period.
Bubba was DISBARRED for it, and more importantly, he dragged the country through his mud for 2 years trying to cover it up. The whole time the leftist were screaming at the prosecutor!
Flash to the present:
A republican assistant is indicted for lying under oath. He immediately resigns to defend himself without defiling his office or responsibility. The republicans almost to a person, condemn lying under oath. No talk about why he lied etc etc.
But now the back story….If the Wilson/Plame’s were so concerned about her cover, perhaps they could have been a bit more circumspect themselves? I would love to Valerie investigated for nepotism and fraud and she foist’s her husband and his cheap-jack “consultant firm” off on the CIA as some sort of expert on Nigeria.
Just like the leftist, stand around throwing mud and then shriek when they get dirty
Hedley and Frank –
You can parse it all you want but you still have to parse it because neither one of you can talk directly about what these indictments are about. Fitzgerald is indeed charging that Libby both knowingly lied and that he knowingly lied about information material to the crime under investigation — the leaking of classified information. The crime under investigation was whether or not Valerie Wilson’s CIA job was leaked to the press. Fitzgerald says her status was classified and that Libby leaked it. Libby lied about the fact that he gave her name and job to reporters when he told the FBI and the grand jury that reporters gave her name and job to him. He told the exact opposite of the truth repeatedly and Fitzgerald says he can prove that Libby did it knowingly. Hence the perjury charge. As to that final point that “you re off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement I assume that this is why Rove revisted the gj so many times and why, indeed, he isn’t being charged with perjury or obstruction — yet. He went back to correct his testimony. Libby apparently did not. Why? Who knows. Does it matter? Not really. He let his lies stand and now he’s being charged.
Let’s look at Frank’s example more precisely. If someone commits perjury it doesn’t matter whether they are lying knowingly about the material facts of a traffic violation or hit and run. It’s still perjury, right? It’s still two charges now instead of one, right? Let’s say your car’s license plate gets photographed as you run a red light. Taking the case to court you say under oath that you weren’t driving the car because it was stolen. But then the prosecutor delivers evidence that proves in fact it was you driving the car. Guess what? You just added perjury to your list of charges. You lied knowingly about a material fact of the charge against you under oath. I suppose it’s up to the judge and prosecutor’s discretion as to whether to charge with perjury but you still committed perjury in the eyes of the law. What’s so hard to see about that?
Of course in the actual case in hand, Fitzgerald is charging that Libby knowingly lied under oath about the material facts in a matter of national security. As I understand it, in a court of law, Fitzgerald will have to prove each one of the first three points: Libby kowingly lied under oath about facts material to the crime under investigation. The law doesn’t say that the crime under investigation has to be a serious one. Does it? Fitzgerlad will also, presumably, argue that this is a serious case about national security probably because one of the defense arguments wil be “no harm no foul” but that doesn’t have anything to do with the actual facts of the perjury charge. The defende will try to sway the jury toward making an “extra-legal” decision: He perjuried himself but so what. If, however, the jury sticks to the facts at hand in making its decision, whether the initial crime was about national security or not won’t matter. But Fitzgerald will tell themto stick to the facts as well as argue that its a serious matter of national security.
Here’s the bottom line: Through out the Clinton scandal, conservatives had to repeat over and over “It isn’t about the sex, it’s about the lying.” Great. Bully for them. Defenders of Fitzgerald’s indictments, however, have the pleasure of saying “It’s about national security AND the lying.” What’s more. in one bravura press conference, Fitzgerald swept aside every single talking point spouted by just about every conservative asshole who commented on the investigation. Idiots like Frank continue on without pause, however, reduced now to attacking Fitzgerald himself implying that he’s “out of control.” First, they’ll take a stab at bullshit legal parsing that Libby’s lies weren’t that big a deal so why bother or that there was no initial crime to knowingly, materially lie about in the first place — both of which are patent bullshit. When that doesn’t fly it’ll get ugly. They’ll resort to attacking his political and personal life. So don’t give me any other bullshit about my language. I give a week before we start hearing ugly rumors about Fitzgerald’s personal life or that he once shared a cab with someone who voted for Kerry. And Frank, you’ll still be an idiot.
To be more succinct: By comparing material lies under oath about a traffic violation to material lies under oath in a hit and run case, Frank is suggesting that the seriousness of the initial crime has something to do with the legal charge of perjury. It doesn’t. Hedley’s own post proves that Frank’s example is bullshit. I simply assumed that in this discussion lie was being used as a synonym for perjury, that is, a knowing lie about a material fact. If it isn’t then Frank’s example is still bullshit becasue then no one could be charged with perjury in either case so his whole point is irrelevant. Which of course would be par for the course.
You just added perjury to your list of charges. You lied knowingly about a material fact of the charge against you under oath. I suppose it s up to the judge and prosecutor s discretion as to whether to charge with perjury but you still committed perjury in the eyes of the law. What s so hard to see about that?
If it’s up to the prosecutor to determine if charges will be brought, then you have not “committed perjury in the eyes of the law.”
Having charges dismissed is not the same as being found innocent. Let me ask you, was OJ guity or innocent? I think he was guilty, but he was found not guilty.
If Libby ends up with 1000 hours or less of community service, and no fine, will that mean he was guilty of serious charges, but received a slap on the wrist? Well, it could mean the charges (that he was found guilty of) weren’t very serious, or it could mean he got off easy. The Judge’s sentencing statement will give you some clue as to what the sitution was, but we’re always entitled to our own opinion.
Frank –
You’re right. Libby is innocent until proven guilty. I never meant to suggest otherwise. What I meant to say is that the legal definition of perjury is, per Hedley, lying under oath about material facts, and that’s all the requirements, as far as I know, that a prosecutor has to meet in order to bring a charge of perjury. He doesn’t have to also prove that the initial crime under investigation was a serious crime. You seem to be insisting that he does, which is bullshit. Or else you are talking about the penalty phase of a perjury case which is, again, totally irrelevant to this discussion. A judge has the discretion to hand down whatever penalty he or she wants wihtin the range provided. I agree with that which is one reason why I’m oppossed to three strikes laws: they take the power of discretion out of a judge’s hands. BUt that has nothing to do with whether or not Fitzgerald proved to the grand jury that he had sufficient evidence to bring a charge of perjury and obstruction against Libby. Clealry, Fitzgerald made his case and the gran jury approved it. How Libby will eventually be found or what his penalty will be has no bearing on the discussion of whether these indictments are valid. Why you’re even bringing it up is beyond me. You’re jumping to a hypothetical argument about a phase of the trial, if there even is a trial, that’s probably two years away. If a judge gives Libby a slap on the wrist does that mean perjury isn’t a serious crime? If Libby is found innocent does that mean Fitzgerald never should have brought the charges in the first place? Not all. Fitzgerald answered all this in his press conference when he said this:
“That talking point won’t fly. If you’re doing a national security investigation, if you’re trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven — because remember there’s a presumption of innocence — but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.
And I’d say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time … When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost. If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it’s a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.”
You can argue with me all you want but why don’t you try arguing with what Fitzgerald actually said. Read this statement again and tell me how he’s overstepped his bounds in bringing these charges against Libby. Tell me that he doesn’t believe perjury is a serious crime no matter what initially sparked the investigation.
I don’t claim to know enough about the law to determine if Fitzgerald “overstepped his bounds.”
But I can think this: If I don’t think I committed a crime, I will be very careful of what I say to a Grand Jury, so they don’t think I did.
If Libby stepped over a line by lying to a Grand Jury because he didn’t believe he committed a crime, then he may have committed a crime (of perjury), but he didn’t lie to prevent discovery of a crime (obstruction of justice).
My own philosophy of law is that when two people, X and Y, go into Court, there is X’s version of the truth, Y’s version of the truth, and the version of the truth the Court arrives at. Finally, there is the real, objective truth.
Lawyers and judges may arrive at version # 3, but it takes historians something like a generation or more to arrive at truth version # 4, and sometimes it never happens.
“If I don t think I committed a crime, I will be very careful of what I say to a Grand Jury, so they don t think I did … If Libby stepped over a line by lying to a Grand Jury because he didn t believe he committed a crime …”
Okay. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t mean to actually type this. Are you saying that sometimes innocent people have to lie to prove they are innnocent? Are you saying that you think Libby had to lie to prove he was innocent? If you know you didn’t commit a crime why would you have to be careful about what you said to a grand jury? If you believe you are innocent of a crime how would lying help you prove it? How does any of this make any sense whatsoever?
“Lawyers and judges may arrive at version # 3, but it takes historians something like a generation or more to arrive at truth version # 4, and sometimes it never happens.”
The same here. You couldn’t have possibly meant to type this. Are you saying that it will be decades, if ever, before we can know with any certainty that most people in prison or on death row are actually guilty? Furthermore, are you saying that historians are the only people who have access to objective truth? Whaaa?
These are two of the stupidest statements I have ever read.
frameone — I learned long ago that you can always count on a stupid person to think an intelligent person is stupid.
I won’t even touch your first comment, because you have made a hash of my remarks, and now you want me to straighten it out for you. Questions on these threads that begin “Are you saying that… ” are not questions of clarification; they are argumentative. (”If you know you didn t commit a crime why would you have to be careful about what you said to a grand jury?” Apparently, the answer to this question requires more imagination than you possess) If you really wanted to know what I meant, this is not the question you would have asked. If you are truly confused, I can’t help you.
As to your second comment, it’s really quite simple — far more simple than you make it out to be. It requires no explanation You can type “Whaaa?” ’til you get carpal tunnel syndrome, for all I care. Maybe the omniscient JadeGold or verbose Semanticleo can explain it to you, if they are so inclined.
But I will give you one hint: Are you familiar with Wenn diagrams?
Well, X’s version overlaps with Y’s version (with something of X and something of Y left over), representing all the facts presented in the Court Room.
All of X plus All of Y represents a “Universe of Truth” — the “Court’s Truth” can be no greater.
Outside of the Wenn diagram of “All of X plus All of Y” is a great Circle called “H” which represents All the Facts of the actual case, whether or not they were presented by either X or Y.
The rest is up to you. Maybe now you’ll realize that your previous comments were two of the stupidest statements I’ve ever read.
frameone I learned long ago that you can always count on a stupid person to think an intelligent person is stupid.>/i>
In case you didn’t understand what that meant: “I don’t understand what you mean, so you must be stupid.
“Questions on these threads that begin Are you saying that& are not questions of clarification; they are argumentative.”
– Duh. I really didn’t expect much clarification on this issue until decades later when some objective historian gets to weigh in.
I will note how nice it is for you to completely dodge the issue of how it’s possible that Libby had to lie to prove he was innocent. I made a hash of your remarks? Go back and re-read what you wrote and tell me it makes sense. Read it slow:
“If Libby stepped over a line by lying to a Grand Jury because he didn t believe he committed a crime, then he may have committed a crime (of perjury), but he didn t lie to prevent discovery of a crime (obstruction of justice).”
You’re saying that Libby perjured himself because he thought he was innocent? He believed that he hadn’t committed a crime so he lied to prove that he didn’t commit a crime and in so doing, committed a crime? I think I will need help to sort that out. I’m stumped.
Your turn to the Wenn diagram also helps to explain just how dumb your original phrasing really is.
Let’s see if I got it. Some evidence is admissable under law, some isn’t. Judges and juries only get to make their decisions based on the information/evidence that they’re allowed to use by law. Fine. But does it follow then that only historians can ever know the objective truth of a case? Why? Just because they get to include newspaper accounts in their assessments? Because they can factor in evidence that the court initially proscribed because it was deemed inadmissable? Because a historian can take into account a confession arrived at through torture they’ll be able to arrive at the objective truth of a crime? Again, whaaa? Or are you speaking strictly about cases that involve evidence discovered after trial? Like DNA evidence? Which has never been used a court to arrive at the objective truth after the fact? Also, does it follow that the decision arrived at by a court is always different from the objective truth?
Isn’t the truth and our ability to arrive at it in a court of law, the assumption underpinning our entire legal system? And if a court can’t arrive at the objective truth why the hell would a historian be able to decades later? Historians have their versions of the truth too, you know. Ever hear that history is written by the winners? It’s just a dumb ass thing to say that some how decades of distance and a wider field of view automatically make the objective truth any easier to discern or more likely to be arrived at. Indeed, both of those factors may actually cloud the issue.
Oh and BTW, did I say it would take a week before the right started smearing Fitzgerald himself? Make it two days. Idiots.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/30/101014.shtml
“Apparently, the answer to this question requires more imagination than you possess.”
Yes, Frank. It will require a HELL of a lot of imagination for you to convince that Libby lied to the grand jury because he knew he was innocent of a crime. Go ahead, try.
Frank — Let me try asking it another way.
Do you believe that in our system of law, court verdicts have no basis in objective truth?
I didn’t say he lied. I said, and I quote, If I don t think I committed a crime, I will be very careful of what I say to a Grand Jury, so they don t think I did. “Very careful” “so they don’t think I did.”
Here’s an example for you: You’re charged with vehicular manslaughter, and hit – and – run.
You want to testify, but your lawyer recommends against it. You want to say that your tires were worn, and it was a wet night, and you couldn’t stop in time. Your attorney says: You don’t want to admit that you were probably negligent on one count — i.e., driving on poorly tread tires; and possibly negligent on the other count — i.e., driving too fast on a wet night. Leaving the jury with those impressions could get you in really, really hot water.
How do you handle it? You don’t testify — and nobody can make you.
Are those facts of the incident? Yes.
Are they relevant?
Are they entered into evidence? No.
So, we may or may not have sufficient evidence to find you guilty — but we probably can convict you using other evidence. Do we have all the objective truth about the incident? Not from the Court transcript, we don’t
Will we ever? Maybe, if conservations between you and the lawyer are revealed in some way — by historians.
Will we ever know the entire truth about the OJ case? Or Chappaquidick? Or Watergate?
Sure we will.
But we don’t — yet.
Frank –
Your example is stupid. The state of the car’s tires and the condition of the road are objective facts that do not require the testimony of the defendant to be proven in court. Hence their objectivity. The prosecutor would be able to discover and enter these facts as evidence on his or her own without any testimony whatsoever from the witness. At the same time, neither of these objective facts has any bearing on the “run” part of the charge which speaks to the state of mind of the driver. And I would argue a lawyer would want his client to explain his state of mind on the stand if he or she was scared, confused or in shock, all states of mind that might mitigate the “run” charge. Try again.
Only this time, try an example that actually explains your statement about Libby, that he lied to the grand jury because he knew he didn’t commit a crime. Explain that to me. Remember, Libby chose not to take the fifth. Instead, he chose to lie. Let me repeat that: He CHOSE to lie.
Also let me ask you this. Will we ever know the objective truth about the typical murder case that ended today or the dozens of others like it that take place around the country every week? I agree that not every fact ever gets aired in court but are you suggesting that this undermines the ability of the court to arrive at the objective truth of whether or not a man committed murder? Because if you are, aren’t you undermining the very basis of our legal system? It isn’t perfect — see the OJ verdict — but it proceeds with the faith that the objective truth is knowable by men TODAY and that it can be arrived at in a court of law.
Furthermore, if we can’t arrive at the objective truth today, why is there any certainty that a historian can decades later? Historians construct narratives like lawyers, you know. They weigh and choose evidence just like a lawyer and then they use what they want to tell their version of events. It’s the same thing. Just because a hisotrian may have more information available to them does not mean that they are any more likely to arrive at the objective truth of a case than the people who were involved and trying it.
On both points your making wildly overgeneralized statements that have little if anything to do with reality.
Oh, and to remined you what you said, you did say Libby lied:
“If Libby stepped over a line by lying to a Grand Jury because he didn t believe he committed a crime, then he may have committed a crime (of perjury), but he didn t lie to prevent discovery of a crime (obstruction of justice).”
He lied to the grand jury because he didn’t believe he committed a crime. Why would he lie BECAUSE he believed he was innocent?
Those are two different things, and he MIGHT lie in either case.
Also, I’n sorry you weren’t pleased with my example. You asked me to make one up, and I did, and, of course, you weren’t pleased with it. so my whole argument doesn’t hold water.
Of course, it doesn’t. If I could come up with another example, you wouldn’t like that one, either, and I’d still be wrong, because you refuse to get my point
Are you suggesting that this undermines the ability of the court to arrive at the objective truth of whether or not a man committed murder?
I was, and am, saying that the Courts need not determine the whole, objective truth of a matter to determine guilt or innocence. That’s why very often Prosecutors have to emphasize that “beyond all reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond all conceivable doubt.
The answer is no, and I’m not going through it again.
You, on the other hand, got an answer you were sure didn’t even exist, and you still don’t see the fallacy in your original argument that no one would lie to a Grand Jury, unless they were guilty of the crime they were charged with.
Stop calling me stupid long enough to use your head for something besides a hat rack.
“Of course, it doesn t. If I could come up with another example, you wouldn t like that one, either, and I d still be wrong, because you refuse to get my point.”
Way not to address any of my specific criticisms of your example. Not one.
“You still don t see the fallacy in your original argument that no one would lie to a Grand Jury, unless they were guilty of the crime they were charged with.”
Are you on medication? Libby wasn’t charged with a crime when he alledgedly lied to the Grand Jury. Let’s assume that Libby did nothing wrong in telling Miller about Valerie Wilson. Let’s assume that Libby believed in his heart of hearts that he did nothing wrong. I’ll grant you all that. What plausible reason, then, would he have to lie to the FBI and the Grand Jury?
You seem to be suggesting that the only way Libby could avoid being wrongly charged with a crime was to, in fact, commit a crime. How far do you want to take this insanity?
“I was, and am, saying that the Courts need not determine the whole, objective truth of a matter to determine guilt or innocence.”
That’s why the oath says “I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and noting but the truth.” But setting that aside, I grant you that the prosecutor only needs enough evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. But by what measure does that not constitute the objective truth? Because an attorney left out that the fact that the victim was wearing a blue shirt, we have to wait for historians to determine the real objective truth of the matter? You don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore.
I grant you that the prosecutor only needs enough evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Say “Good night,” frameone. We’re back where we started. I’m tired, and I’m tired of you.
Where objective truth doesn’t exist in the courtroom. Fucking genius.