Guilty on four out of five counts. Yet another verified criminal conviction for the Bush administration.
Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Topics
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
GUILTY on 4 of 5 charges!!
The Perfect Storm is happening.
Libby.
Walter Reed.
U.S. Attorney firings.
IMPEACH!!!
Not that I imagine it’ll matter much in the end, but any defeat for this administration is a victory for common sense, therefore:
SUCK. IT. DOWN. SUCK IT RIGHT DOWN. RIGHT DOWN TO THE GROUND.
Oh, and Chris Matthews (of all people) just hit it on the head:
This is about perjury, this about the White House LYING about Saddam Hussein trying to get uranium from Niger in order to gin up support for their illegal war. This a jury saying “Yes, they lied about that and Joe Wilson was right.”
This is a gigantic domino to fall…
The cynic in me says he’ll be pardoned by Bush after Democrats win in 2008.
I don’t think there is any doubt that President Bush will sign the pardon papers in the limo on the way to President-elect Guiliani’s inauguration.
Yeah, cause the right is looking so damn splendid right now arent they Hedley. Whole damn country’s going to vote for the Neglectful-Ignorant-Lying-Criminal-Homophobe-ican party in 18 months I’m so damn sure.
pedugger, SaveFarris, Jay Tea, Jay, Marty, Ian and Frank DiSalle have a perfectly reasonable explanation:
Hedley, if (and that’s a big “if”) the GOP candidate won, a Libby pardon would be a hell of an albatross around his neck.
This is about perjury, this about the White House LYING about Saddam Hussein trying to get uranium from Niger in order to gin up support for their illegal war. This a jury saying “Yes, they lied about that and Joe Wilson was right.”
And Chris Matthews is an idiot. Joe Wilson is a proven liar and this doesn’t vindicate him in any way shape or form.
So Libby’s guilty. What was he guilty of? Lying to the feds and a grand jury about what he told reporters. It’s a serious crime to be sure and Libby has no excuse and deserves whatever sentence he gets, but for Matthews to say that this somehow vindicates Joe Wilson and how it proves the administration was lying about Iraq and uranium is just beyond dumb.
Outgoing presidents always issue pardons, often controversial ones, none of which bear on incoming presidents no matter the party.
Rex, don’t need the “whole damn country” just select parts of it. Don’t forget, sitting senators don’t get elected president.
Outgoing presidents always issue pardons, often controversial ones, none of which bear on incoming presidents no matter the party.
Yeah, but we’re in a new age. Bill Clinton faced some criticism for some of his pardons and that was when the Internet still hadn’t burst with regard to information flow. Political blogs were still in their infancy, there was no Youtube or many other Web 2.0 tools that are utilized these days to get information out.
Chances are, if Bush does pardon him, it will be late in 2008, probably not long after the election. It will generate a bunch of noise, but not like it would if Bush did so prior to the new President being sworn in.
Thanks for the laughs, Jay. Why don’t you put Joe Wilson on trial?
Can’t wait for the Wilsons’ civil suit. The burden of proof is much lower, and the plaintiffs are given a much wider latitude in subpoenaing witnesses.
Oughta be a real hoot.
Jay?
Hedley -
And ex-mayors of New York have such a stellar track record?
Joe Wilson is a “proven liar” by whom?
Libby’s been proven a liar by a jury of his peers. Who proved Joe Wilson was a liar?
Oh, forgot to add:
Suck it, Republican bitches! Ya, burn!
Spider: Wilson was “proved” a liar by the same people who “proved” that Libby would be found not guilty.
SpiderJ, this one does. Besides, no ex-mayor of NYC has ever run for president before to my knowledge. Loads of senators have run. 2 have been successful.
Jay, while I agree that the inevitable pardon itself will certainly generate noise, it won’t impact the next president, regardless of party.
Scooter Goes 4 for 5: Bush Admires Batting Record
Don’t forget, sitting senators don’t get elected president.
Yeah, um, not unless they’re running for President.
Hedley:
Lindsay comes to mind, and that’s just off the top of my head.
There’s this thing called “Teh Googles…” You oughta see if your Intertubes will let it pass through.
Yeah, um, sitting senators who run for president do not get elected president with 2 exceptions in 200+ years.
The fact is Wilson never said that yellowcake was or wasn’t being pursued by Saddam. He said there was no evidence of such an action. His op ed simply said that with pointing out that Bush’s SOTU claim was not provable.
It’s also clear now that Plame was undercover and Cheney, Rove, Libby, Armitage and Fleischer at a minimum were involved in an active campaign to out her.
What is most surprising about this verdict is that in this polarizing times there were not a few sympathetic conservatives who would reach the conclusion averred.
I also join the “pardon” crowd – it is quite likely to occur just prior to the next inaugaration.
The big question is what’s next? Cheney’s blod clot may be on the moving leading to a resignation. Vice President McCain?
Joe Wilson is a proven liar and this doesn’t vindicate him in any way shape or form.
Wilson a proven liar, while Libby was convicted of lying. Typical conservo-whining — it’s always somnebody else’s fault when the rule of law nabs a winger. Just wondering — are you using dugger’s definition of ‘proven liar’?
So 2 sitting senators have made it to the Oval Office. Zero mayors have made the leap to the position, and you have no compelling case as to why Rudy would be the first.
So who do you have to win in the third race at the dog track? I imagine your ability to feign authority on this would be just as convincing.
I feel I would be remiss in again stating for those newly-arrived on this board:
Suck it, Republican bitches! Ya, burn!
So to rephrase Hedley then: It doesnt happen except for when it does and therefore it cant so it wont. Q-E-Durr…
Jimmmm, “Teh Googles”? My Internet-thingy can’t find it. You are right though, that Lindsay also ran for president. Thus, 2 mayors out of 108 have run or are running.
Just wondering — are you using dugger’s definition of ‘proven liar’?
Those parameters do not apply to critics of the president.
This just in – when President Bush was informed of the verdict he said to be true to his word he regretted to announce that Scooter Libby would no longer be part of his administration. When told that Mr. Libby had already resigned Mr. Bush declined to comment further until any appeals have been resolved.
Tony Snow announced at the daily press briefing that FOX News would air Libby’s incisive analysis from prison, and that the American Enterprise Institute has a Senior Fellowship already earmarked for the Vice President’s top aid.
The Hague has also expresed interest in providing Libby with special accomodations.
I apologize for this thread getting off track, so I will end with this: the point is simply that sitting senators, with 2 exceptions, do not get elected president. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but it is not a coincidence that it has very rarely happened.
If the election were today, Giuliani would likely beat any of the big three Democrats, all of whom are senators, and all of whom have no record to speak of. Doesn’t mean Giuliani is going to win, but it isn’t as unlikely as many of you hope.
Wilson a proven liar, while Libby was convicted of lying. Typical conservo-whining — it’s always somnebody else’s fault when the rule of law nabs a winger.
Who said it was somebody else’s fault? Libby’s conviction is is his own fault. Nobody else’s. However, Libby’s conviction in no way shape or form makes Joe Wilson into a truth teller. If you want, start with his fib that his wife had nothing to do with him taking that trip when she in fact specifically recommended him.
ODub, one of the reasons I love your blog is that you have some of the funniest trolls on the intarwebs, particularly Pedo and Jay.
Carry on!
Jay: You’re the gift that keeps giving.
Okay, let’s start with that “fib”–and even forgo making a big production out of the fact that a “specific recommendation” alone does not get Joe Wilson sent to Nigeria, any more than one person’s “specific recommendation” of a talented undergrad gets them into Harvard Law School.
Where do you go from there? Please establish Joe Wilson’s long, terrible history of deception over the course of his decades-long public-service career.
“Niger,” not “Nigeria.”
Damn. I just got turned into a proven liar.
Most of Wilson’s decades-long public service career was spent as an appointee of Republican presidential administrations.
Just sayin’, that’s all.
Libby’s conviction is is his own fault. Nobody else’s.
Actually, I think it’s Cheney’s.
Please, Jay. No more of this “World According to Limbaugh” spew from you.
If you are going to call Joe Wilson, the Hero of Baghdad, “..A proven liar..”, please lay out your case with citations. You will get your stupid ass handed to you by anyone familiar with this case.
See, once again, the FACTS have a “Liberal Bias”…
Here is a study aid for you, Jay, a complete timeline with supporting citations:
link
When all this settles out and progressives grow tired of smearing Libby’s blood on themselves and celebrating, it will be sad. Libby’s crime is lying about stuff to reporters.
I would settle right now, post Libby, for this to never happen to anyone of either party or ideology. If no one is or can be convicted of the original crime, they shouldn’t be forced to leave their wives and children and got to jail for failing some procedure that is nothing more than a part of the investigative process.
And yes, I do feel sad for Libby and his family.
Now cheer some more and smear some more blood on your bodies.
Libby’s crime is lying about stuff to reporters.
That’s one of the four charges of which he was found guilty. The other three?
Lying to the FBI. And lying to a Grand Jury. Twice.
I’m sure you were equally outraged and up in arms when Clinton’s sexual lapses suddenly became a relevant detail in the investigation of his real estate dealings.
pedugger, you’re priceless. And almost as speechless as you were last November. It is thoroughly entertaining.
Libby’s crime is lying about stuff
IMPEACH HIM IMMEDIATELY
Not a drop of Libby’s actual blood was spilt, Dugger. However, tens of thousands of lives have been lost because of VPOTUS’ mendacity.
Real blood. The actual cost of a war based on lies. Not that anybody on the right would ever care about that.
Libby’s crime is lying about stuff to reporters
But why did he lie?
This is the question that wingnuts like pedrugger don’t have the intellectual honesty to ask themselves.
Please establish Joe Wilson’s long, terrible history of deception over the course of his decades-long public-service career.
Start here.
Did Libby tell the truth? Obviously not. We’ve got him on tape. But what make’s Libby’s trangressions rise to the level of obstruction and not…
Richard Armitage’s?
Ari Fleischer’s? — Arguably the two biggest leakers were the first to recieve immunity. Why, if the object of the leak investigation was the leak?
Matt Cooper?
Judy “shopping bag” Miller?
Tim “Impossible!! Except Not So Much…” Russert?
Andrea “Everyone Knew” Mitchell?
The FBI Agent that “lost” the notes of Russert’s Meeting?
The CIA Agent that confirmed Plame’s employment to Novak?
Heck, Fitzgerald obstructed his own case by not talking to Woodward until after the indictment and not talking to Gregory, Mitchell, or Pincus AT ALL!
And what about Robert Fucking Novak???
Okay, let’s start with that “fib”–and even forgo making a big production out of the fact that a “specific recommendation” alone does not get Joe Wilson sent to Nigeria, any more than one person’s “specific recommendation” of a talented undergrad gets them into Harvard Law School.
Oh please. He said his wife had NOTHING TO DO with him taking the trip and that clearly was not the case.
I don’t have time to lay out all of Wilson’s lies. You people know hot use Google. Get to it.
Libby was convicted. Enjoy.
But don’t take it as some kind of validation of anything that Joe Wilson has claimed or alleged because that’s just nonsense.
I’ll make it simpler and just ask:
Please explain how Libby’s conviction validates:
A. Wilson’s charge that Bush lied about Iraq seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
B. Wilson’s claim that his wife was purposely outed as political retribution for what he did.
C. Wilson’s claim that it was Karl Rove who was behind everything when we now know it was Richard Armitage
Please. Explain.
How about you Nimrod? Or are we just going to get more of your drive-by trolling?
Jay, why did Libby lie?
So…okay…if Joe Wilson is a Big Fat Liar, then why didn’t the administration just release a litany of Joe Wilson’s lies and discredit him? What on Earth possessed Scooter to commit four federal crimes in the service of fighting back against a “proven liar”?
This seems like a nonsensical strategy: “Joe Wilson’s telling lies! The only way to combat Joe Wilson’s lies is to…TELL MORE LIES! To the FBI! And under oath!”
That’s the problem, isn’t it. If “the truth” about Niger was on Scooter’s side, there’s no reason for him to have lied about it.
A. Bush did lie about Iraq seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
B. Wilson’s wife was purposely outed as political retribution.
C. We know Armitage wasn’t the only one spreading the Valerie Plame’s name around.
SaveFarris’ article is dated and wrong in many ways.
“I don’t have time to lay out all of Wilson’s lies.”
Translation: I have nothing but will continue to lie as it suits me.
“You people know hot use Google. Get to it.”
Everybody, just as a warning, “Hot Use” Google is totally not work safe.
A. Bush did lie about Iraq seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
No, he did not. Two intelligence reports from the US and GB confirmed it was true.
B. Wilson’s wife was purposely outed as political retribution.
By Richard Armitage? An Iraq war skeptic? Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
C. We know Armitage wasn’t the only one spreading the Valerie Plame’s name around.
And? Once Armitage dropped her name, everybody knew about it.
Who knows why Libby lied? Who knows why anybody lies about things from time to time? Libby’s lies don’t make Joe Wilson a truth-teller. That’s pretzel logic in the extreme.
Joe Wilson is a bad guy because it’s in your interests for him to be a bad guy. That’s all there is to it.
Sandy Burger lied to investigators and stole classified documents from the National Archives in order to prevent the 9/11 Commission from having access to them.
No one with a lick of sense can argue that Libby’s misleading testimony to a grand jury was more damaging than Berger’s deliberate attempt to derail a Federal investigation into the most serious act of terrorism ever committed on American soil.
For his crime, Berger paid a $50,000 fine and had to do 100 hours of community service. And he lost his security clearance for two years.
This whole thing was nothing but a partison witch hunt, and the people who actually should answer for this episode (especially Novak and Richard Armitage) have gotten off scott free. If Libby’s appeal fails, he deserves no more than the same “harsh” sentence received by Berger. If Libby is sentenced to prison, Bush should do the right thing and pardon him.
And I doubt any members of the President’s family will be caught accepting six-figure bribes in order to secure that pardon.
“Sandy Burger lied to investigators and stole classified documents from the National Archives in order to prevent the 9/11 Commission from having access to them.”
False.
1.) The documents Berger removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals
2.) 9-11 Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg has stated that the commission is not missing documents. “This is a matter between the government and an individual,” Further more,
“the panel has “copies of everything (Berger) saw. We have access to every one of these documents that we have been reading about that have been allegedly taken. We have had access to everything. In no way was our report compromised.”
-A pardon for Libby? What -Dubya taking a page out of Daddy’s Iran Contra playbook?
Who knows why Libby lied? Who knows why anybody lies about things from time to time?
Usually it’s to protect one’s self, or one’s friends and allies from an embarrassing truth, no?
Can you think of any other reason? If so, I’d like to hear it.
Sandy Burger lied to investigators and stole classified documents…
Mike, why did Libby lie?
A court has ruled Libby lied. I don’t know enough of the proceedings to have an opinion as to whether his memory was faulty or not. It took the jury a very long time to make a determination so I assume it wasn’t easy either way. And it didn’t sound like that jury liked Libby (one guy was a WaPo reporter who was talking about the need to get Cheney).
Again at one point, the whole deal was the outing of Plame
Again, celebrate. You’ve put a political opponent in jail – for saying inconsistent things to reporters – which a jury found to be lies. What happened to the concern for leaks? Liberal papers leaked classified right and left after this. No response. But sniff some republican blood and the mob goes wild. Is it any wonder that historys’ most accomplished murderers are leftists.
Assholes!
Wow, look how crazy Duggsy’s getting. I think he may be on the verge of admitting why Libby lied: to protect Cheney.
Rabies is apparently the last stage before acceptance.
“Is it any wonder that historys’ most accomplished murderers are leftists.”
Like who? Ted Bundy?
-Don’t go away mad,Dugger.
Just go away.
C. We know Armitage wasn’t the only one spreading the Valerie Plame’s name around.
True! According to Andrea Mitchell, “Everybody knew”. Too bad the jury wasn’t allowed to hear that.
“for saying inconsistent things to reporters – which a jury found to be lies.”
Reporters, and a GRAND JURY and the FB Bloody I. Acknowledge the full story.
This whole thing was nothing but a partison witch hunt,
Well, we learned it from watching ken Starr.
and the people who actually should answer for this episode (especially Novak and Richard Armitage) have gotten off scott free.
Here is at the very least, something we agree on. Why wasn’t Novak forced to testify? Why is it he was the first one to print the story, but no one called him on it?
1. Of course it was true Jay, which is why the CIA asked the administration to remove the claim from the SOTU and didn’t want anything to do with it. It was a false and dubious claim.
2. Armitage wasn’t the first or only one to out her.
3. ditto.
Yes Dugger, it was all about lying to reporters. Sure it was, repeat it if it helps you sleep at night. Outing covert CIA employees and then trying to cover that up had nothing to do with it.
SaveFarris: why did Libby lie?
Is there any right-winger capable of answering this question?
Why lie to reporters? The point is that he lied to a grand jury etc…etc… Dugger can treat this like boys lying about how big thier Johnson is and how many sexual conquests they have had, but this subject is NOT something one casually lies about! I am not going to cheer other peoples suffering for political points, but good riddance if you can’t be truthful over such an important subject. Libby had something or someone to hide and he was arrogant enough to believe he could get away with it scott-free. I only ask one thing from the wingers: Please lets not start the “Memory Game” of political vetting. This whole excuse of “I don’t recall, remember, recollect….” is horseshit! Iran-Contra was much the same. These people aren’t carnival ride conductors! They hold THE most powerful jobs in American society and statistically they can’t all have Alzhiemers. Government officials are not comatose and are certianly not niave.(Which to throw a bone to the right-wingers here..includes Clinton:) The difference being one lied about getting f*cked and the other lied about f*cking others over.
Dugger | Mar 6, 2007 5:31:15 PM
“Is it any wonder that historys’ most accomplished murderers are leftists. Assholes!”
peduggster, you’re sounding like it’s Noveeember again … LoL!
Fugs, that’s got to be the saddest, funniest, stupidest thing you’ve ever posted.
It totally encapsualtes the total, grand glory of your idiocy. Priceless.
As far as Andrea Mitchell indicating that everyone knew of Plame’s identity it is rather that every beltway media elitist knew because they got calls from Scooter, Tooter (Rove), Muter (Fliescher) and Shooter.
Why hasn’t the “T” word come up yet? Didn’t Bush’s old man indicate that he’d costrue what happened in that vein???
Trolls really remind me of cheap rugs. Good for nothing but lying around. And around. And around. You folks should just ignore them. Maybe they’ll get bored and go play on the freeway or something.
Why hasn’t the “T” word come up yet? Didn’t Bush’s old man indicate that he’d costrue what happened in that vein???
Because the CIA essentially de-classified her status by confirming her employment to Novak. Langley wouldn’t have done that were Plame “covert”.
SaveFarris: why did Libby lie?
Wilbur: Some people believe that Libby did not lie. Some people believe that he forgot a few things.
That’s a Federal crime for a Republican; SOP for a corrupt Democrat.
Shut up, Frank.
why did Libby lie?
The only proof we had that Libby “lied” instead of mis-remembered is Tim Russert’s testimony. It’s He Said, He Said. Russert has no cooberating evidence (such as a recording or notes). And Russert has just as big a motiviation to lie as Libby. (Were it known he had exculpatory evidence, he’d have faced jail time like Judy Miller.)
This is the same Russert, by the way, who said it was “impossible” to know about Plame’s status before Libby’s phone call. “Impossible” even though Mitchell knew. “Impossible” even though Fleischer testified that he told David Gregory 3 days earlier. “Impossible” even though, at the time of the phone call, Novak’s article had already hit the wires.
SaveFarris: GUILTY!!!
And that after the defense pared down the jury pool. GUILTY!!!
Miss-remember? Kindergarten children forget important things not White House staff. He was proven a liar in a court of law, but it is most disturbing how every Republican “just can’t remember”. These statements are always code for: lying to save my butt. Again, Farris, Frank et. al. STOP treating these grown men like niave idiots. This is not Memento folks. They know EXACTLY what they are doing.
SaveFarris | Mar 7, 2007 8:36:58 AM
“The only proof we had that Libby “lied” instead of mis-remembered is Tim Russert’s testimony.”
Tim Russert “mis-remembered”?
“It’s He Said, He Said. Russert has no cooberating evidence (such as a recording or notes).”
‘cowwoborating’ evidence?
fd10801 | Mar 7, 2007 7:07:09 AM
“… Some people believe that he forgot a few things.”
Frank, that’s utter horseshit. Not even you believe that.
He believes what he’s told to believe.
Kindergarten children forget important things not White House staff.
Only problem is, noone testified that Wilson’s wife was important except for Fleischer (who was subsequently impeached by Pincus in court and Dickerson in print). All the other people that discussed Plame with Libby (Grossman, Schmall, Greiner, Martin) testified that the Plame info was fringe and a small unimportant piece of a big pie.
Yes, S, it’s entirely possible that Russert “mis-remembered”. We already have him on record “mis-remembering” when he filed a false affidavit about testifying before the Grand Jury. He somehow casually forgot that he had already agreed to an interview by the FBI.
I think I’ll go with the interpretation of a defense-counsel-approved jury of 12 of Libby’s peers, over the self-serving interpretation of a couple wingnut ideologues with keyboards, thanks.
But just to make you happier I’ll change my question: Assuming the jury is correct that Libby lied why would he have done it?
Frank? S.F.? Mike? Dugger? Anybody got the balls to answer?
“Because the CIA essentially de-classified her status by confirming her employment to Novak. Langley wouldn’t have done that were Plame “covert”.”
No, the CIS didn’t “essentially” say this and that is why there was an investigation in the first place. Just yesterday Fitzgerald made it clear that Plame was undercover.
Actually, Cheney claimed that Bush gave him the power to declassify the identity. If he had such power then there was no need for Libby to lie. Oh what a web we weave…
Blah Blah Blah. Joe Blow dissected the testimony and this and that and impeached this and that and rain fell on Tuesday. Blah Blah Blah. Sounds to me like SaveFarris should have been the defense attorney because I seem to recall that Libby was found GUILTY!!!
Just yesterday Fitzgerald made it clear that Plame was undercover.
And he was so clear, that he refused to offer evidence of such during the trial and hid anything that would have bolstered his case, even from Judge Walton himself.
Midderpidge, I’d rather have been the Prosecutor. First, I’d have actually found out Plame’s status (just saying it in press conferences isn’t “proof” in and of itself irregardless of what most posters here believe.)
Then, if that were actually proven, I’d have gone after Armitage. You remember him? The ACTUAL leaker?!?
Irredardless=not a real word.
Wilbur
Accepting your premise
Could have been any number of reasons. A reason you might like is that he lied to protect the evil war-mongering Cheney nad Bush. I think its also possible he lied because of his dawning worries that some of what he was and had been saying to reporters was good deal more sensitive than he realized and could get him in trouble.
wilbur: Try this answer:
I don’t believe he was guilty of perjury, because he had no reason to conceal the truth, as he knew it.
If I go into a courtroom and say, “I saw wilbur club that little old lady,” when in fact, you did not, does that make guilty of perjury?
It does only if I know you did not do it.
Is this making any sense to any of you liberals?
Let’s see, was Valerie Plame undercover? Yes. The CIA asked for the investigation so that pretty much tells me that her employment status at the CIA was secret. What is the case that she wasn’t covert? She had a desk. Good job guys.
You know who looks good now is Joe Wilson. I mean, to hear Jay tell it Joe Wilson is the biggest liar since George W Bush, but now the case looks flimsy considering his wife was outed to smear it and then members of the Bush administration lied about it and obstructed the investigation into it.
1.)The documents Berger removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals.
2.) 9-11 Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg has stated that the commission is not missing documents. “This is a matter between the government and an individual
All of which is based on the information that was available back in 2004. However, as noted here, based on the Sandy Berger report recently released by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee:
And as noted here:
So at best we can say that the only documents we know for sure Berger stole were copies. Because the original documents he did have access to were not inventoried and there were no copies, there’s no way for anyone other than Berger to know exactly what, if anything, he took.
But since Berger knowingly (i.e. hidden in his socks, stashed under a nearby construction trailer, etc.) took classified documents (even if they were copies) out of a secure facility, it’s not a stretch to suspect that he may have taken originals as well.
The full report is here.
What is the case that she wasn’t covert?
1. She had a desk. (nice catch! Having a desk at Langley is a HORRIBLE cover if you’re trying to conceal the fact you work at Langley.)
2. Harlow confirmed her employment to Novak.
3. No foreign overseas work in the last 5 years.
4. Listing yourself in “Who’s Who”.
5. “Everybody Knew” according to Andrea Mitchell.
6. The person who WROTE THE LAW about outing covert agents (Victoria Toensing) says she was not covert.
7. Dana Priest (who loves BushCo so much she broke the CIA Foreign Prison and Walter Reed stories) said the leak didn’t compromise national security”.
Against all that, we have Fitzgerald’s word, and a referral from the CIA, who didn’t want to be left holding the bag on intelligence failures. See George “Slam Dunk” Tenant.
I’d LOVE to see that referral made public. Wouldn’t you?
It appears this verdict made some right wingers crap their pants, they are changing their underwear just like they are changing the subject.
1. She had a desk. (nice catch! Having a desk at Langley is a HORRIBLE cover if you’re trying to conceal the fact you work at Langley.)
Many covert and classified personnel have desks at Langley. It’s not as if Langley is open to the public.
2. Harlow confirmed her employment to Novak
This proves what?
3. No foreign overseas work in the last 5 years.
Untrue.
4. Listing yourself in “Who’s Who”.
Undercover doesn’t mean not having your your name printed anywhere. Unless Plane’s Who’s Who entry read ‘Valerie Plame–Undercover CIA agent.’
5. “Everybody Knew” according to Andrea Mitchell.
Andrea Mitchell’s opinion means nothing.
. The person who WROTE THE LAW about outing covert agents (Victoria Toensing) says she was not covert.
Two problems here: first, Brent Budowsky who did author the CIA Identities Law says Toensing is out to lunch. Second, the CIA referred the Plame case to DoJ on the determination that Plame was covert.
7. Dana Priest (who loves BushCo so much she broke the CIA Foreign Prison and Walter Reed stories) said the leak didn’t compromise national security”.
Untrue. Priest gave an opinion and said “In the end the outing of Valerie Plame’s name did not cause great national security damage and anyone who says the opposite really is just trying to score political points against the administration.”
Several problems here; first, it’s Priest’s opinion–not based on fact. Second, are leaks of classified material ok if the damage to National security isn’t great? The answer, of course, is ‘no.’
3. No foreign overseas work in the last 5 years.
Untrue.
Actually, the criteria is that at the time of the disclosure, the covert agent whose identity was disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five years of the disclosure
What’s hasn’t been clarified is whether making a short visit overseas while manning a desk at Langley for 5+ years (as Plame did) constitutes as “serving overseas”.
What’s hasn’t been clarified is whether making a short visit overseas while manning a desk at Langley for 5+ years (as Plame did) constitutes as “serving overseas”.
Huh? You go overseas as part of your official capacity–it’s serving overseas.
Huh? You go overseas as part of your official capacity–it’s serving overseas.
“Serving overseas” implies being stationed there and actually living there for a period of time. If I make a 2 week business trip to Europe this year it doesn’t mean that I can be now consider myself as having “served overseas”.
I’m sure the US government (which includes the CIA) has clear rules on what constitutes “serving overseas”. I have yet to see anyone on either side of this issue provide conclusive proof of what that rule is.
If you’re listing yourself in Who’s Who, hitting the party circuit with your noted gadfly husband, and multiple Journalists around town know where you work, it’s hard to then claim that your employment status is “secret”.
I reiterate, I would love to see proof. Let’s join in demanding Fitzgerald/CIA to release the referral. Libby’s already convicted so there’s nothing to lose, right?
Serving overseas implies going overseas and meeting with contacts and undertaking aspects of your job. Not living there or being stationed there. Furthermore, even if you don’t go overseas, if you have contact with those who are stationed or work overseas, it would be desirable to keep your status covert so others aren’t exposed, as happened here, an entire CIA front company was exposed.
How can someone be a “noted gadfly” if most people hadn’t even heard of Joe Wilson before his wife was outed?
From … the Washington Post
“Serving overseas” implies being stationed there and actually living there for a period of time.
Baloney.
If, as part of your official capacity, you do anything oversea–you’ve served overseas.
If you’re listing yourself in Who’s Who, hitting the party circuit with your noted gadfly husband, and multiple Journalists around town know where you work, it’s hard to then claim that your employment status is “secret”.
This is simply a stupid argument. The Who’s Who entry did not mention CIA.
We already knew Valerie Plame existed therefore she was already out I AM BEST
The “who’s who” entry was for Ambassador Wilson, not Valerie Plame.
Frank, is that an actual story or an editorial? Because, you know, it sure seems full of someone’s opinion.
Even if Novak was the first one to figure it out, as he originally claimed (which I highly doubt), by going through Who’s Who, it would still seem like he’s the one we should be looking at. For a treasonous act.
But sadly, no.
If I go into a courtroom and say, “I saw wilbur club that little old lady,” when in fact, you did not, does that make guilty of perjury?
It does only if I know you did not do it.
Pay attention Frank. The jury, after several days of deliberation, determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally lied. My question asked you to assume that the jury might be correct.
he lied to protect the evil war-mongering Cheney nad Bush.
Dugger, do you have any evidence that this is not the case? Sounds like a pretty reasonable working hypothesis to me.
His motive was immaterial. He lied. 11 good citizens and true examined all the evidence and concurred: Believe in little blue Martians if you want, fool; your beliefs are irrelevant . If he lied and had no reason to, he’s still a liar only an extremely stupid one as well.
Now, fire Cheney!
Duros: That’s an editorial from the “not right wing” Washington Post.
Mike reveals, at last, the true motive behind the Libby trial. I guess you’re disappointed. In the name of Justice, I hope Libby serves as much time as Ted Kennedy did for letting a girl die…
In the name of justice Frank?
In the name of justice the fuck would be forced to join our army in Iraq and put on patrols for the next four years along with Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the lying cowards that engineered that disasterous war.
multiple Journalists around town know where you work, it’s hard to then claim that your employment status is “secret”.
This is one of those claims that floats around with no evidence to support it but suggests that Wilson is a liar. Gee, why would anyone want to do that?
The defense had the opportunity to put some of these people on the stand to show that this was “common knowledge.” Nada.
Any journalist claiming that he or she knew before the Novak column can just show evidence of that claim, something written and datable.
Crickets. Can you NAME some of these people who “knew” this?
Can I sell you some beachfront property in South Dakota? You sound like someone who would buy anything.
The whole set of GOP talking points about Wilson is grade-A BS.
They say that Wilson claimed he was sent by Cheney. He didn’t
They say that it was Plame’s idea to send Wilson. It wasn’t.
Every apparent inconsistency, however slight, in anything Wilson ever says is trumpeted by them as proof that Wilson is a liar and a fraud.
Meanwhile, Libby is convicted, in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, of four counts of lying and that means nothing to them.
Incredible.
Nope. Wells tried to call Andrea “Everybody Knew” Mitchell and Judge Wells overruled her appearance before the jury.
Was there a reason, or does that not matter as much as the action itself?
Duros: That’s an editorial from the “not right wing” Washington Post.
Then why should I care?
The reason Walton gave was that Plame’s status was “irrelevant” to the case. And as such, testimony by Mitchell that “Everyone Knew” didn’t affect whether Libby lied to Russert. (Nevermind that Russert testified that if anyone in his bureau knew, they would have reported it to him, making Mitchell’s statement useable for Impeaching Russert’s “Impossible” testimony.)
Of course, that didn’t stop Fitzgerald from making Plame’s heretofore undocumented status the centerpiece of his closing argument. So much so that Walton had to scold Fitz in front of the jury about it.
Blah Blah Blah.
Libby lied to the FBI, the Grand Jury and the reporters and obstructed justice in a crime that endangers our national security. Save Farris wants to retry the case line by cherrypicked line with the conspiracy talk he got from FreeRepublic or Little Green Freakballs or Rightwing Koolaid daily or wherever.
Straw man alert! What did Kennedy plead? (Kennedy eventually plead guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident and the case was closed) What did the Libby jury decide? Guilty. Grow up, little boy, and put your straw man dolls away.
Wilbur: My answer expected you to realize that I don’t think Libby was guilty of anything.
Mike: I will overlook your condescending tone, only because you totally misunderstood my post, as did midderpidge. I was being melodramatic, and suggesting that Libby should be punished soundly for his “terrible crime”, like Ted Zeppelin was for his crime.
If Kennedy could do what he did, and get no punishment, what do you really think should happen to Libby?
Can you really picture him in a hard – boiled egg eating contest with “Cool Hand Luke”?
C’mon.
Wilbur: My answer expected you to realize that I don’t think Libby was guilty of anything.
I see that frozen wall of manure in front of me and I will not beat my head against it. I will not.
Wilbur: My answer expected you to realize that I don’t think Libby was guilty of anything.
I see that frozen wall of manure in front of me and I will not beat my head against it. I will not.
Hmm…Frank, jury in a sanctioned court of law. Frank, jury. Frank, Jury…I just can’t decide.
Frank, I was being serious. Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Rice, and the rest of the liars that started this war should be flown to Iraq, shoved in outdated armor, put in an underarmored vehicle and sent out on patrol.
“Dugger, do you have any evidence that this is not the case? Sounds like a pretty reasonable working hypothesis to me.”
Yeah, reasonable to you. But actually I can’t disprove that Nancy Pelosi lives in a forest and eats little German children. Can you?
Now that Dugger has established what reasonable hypothesis means to him we can dismiss him entirely.
Frank, eat a dick.
Very classy, “s”
fd10801 | Mar 10, 2007 11:08:22 AM
“Very classy, “s”"
Frank, remember your ASSumption/accusation that I sought out and published the urnotalone link and you were proven wrong — AHgain — when several people confirmed it was frameone?
You’re leaping to conclusions. Again.
It is laughable you make a judgemental comment about anyone demonstrating classiness given your recent ban from this blog.
tpuahbn cgau uejowvb otih zolgqknhs curkw laxuqgine