In this episode of Kirsten Powers, Serial Idiot, alleged Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers yuks it up with gal pal Michelle Malkin (both of them sporting brand new windblown Fox News Fembot makeovers) about how prosecuting Scooter Libby for perjuring himself in a federal investigation was just not an issue worth investigating by the Dept. of Justice. This is the only kind of Democrat who can make it on Fox News, one who regularly craps on the rule of law.
“Democratic Strategist” and patsy Laura Schwartz was also part of this crapfest, but we’re focusing for now on Kirsten Powers and the way she makes a living by denigrating the Democratic Party and the left by posing as a “Democratic Strategist”. Powers served as a low level official in the Clinton administration, but apparently she thinks Sen. Clinton is part of the fringe left for thinking the President’s de facto pardon of Scooter Libby was a “clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice”.
The Democratic Party should sue her to force her to top calling herself a Democrat.
Good for Bush! Libby is a defacto political prisoner. All the leftie rage is good for the republican Party and is nothing more than repackaged BDS.
Why didn’t Fitz go after the leaker?
Marc Grossman changed his story and blamed it on faulty memory. No punishment.
Robert Grenier changed his story and blamed it on faulty memory. No punishment.
Craig Schmall changed his story and blamed it on faulty memory. No punishment.
Cathy Martin changed her story and blamed faulty memory. No punishment.
Ari Fleischer changed his story and blamed faulty memory. Given immunity.
Judy Miller changed her story and blamed faulty memory. Spent 85 days in jail for obstruction but no charges brought.
Matt Cooper changed his story and blamed faulty memory. No punishment.
Tim Russert changed his story (and filed a false affidavidt) and blamed faulty memory. No punishment.
Scooter Libby changed his story and blamed faulty memory. Sentenced to 2.5 years prison, $200,00 fine.
Equal justice under the law?!?
“Good for Bush! Libby is a defacto political prisoner. All the leftie rage is good for the republican Party and is nothing more than repackaged BDS.”
When I read this, I assumed it was one of the normal people on this site doing a parody of a right-winger.
“Why didn’t Fitz go after the leaker?”
… Cause that investigation was derailed by Libby, (and others), obstructing justice.
“Equal justice under the law?!?”
I agree, a lot more people should be in jail for this crime. But Scooter should be one of them.
Ha, what an outrage. You fail to remember what the previous president did for political and personal gain.
Let me remind you and make sure you go out and vote for Billary Clinton this time too. If you didn’t get enough raping the first time, vote them in again.
In total, President Clinton issued 456 executive clemency orders - 395 pardons and 61 commutations - between 1993 and January 20, 2001. The vast majority were issued in the last three years of his presidency - 176 (140 pardons, 36 commutations) were issued on his last day in office.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6a.htm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons0a.htm
He pardoned the former head of the CIA for improper storage and leak — and very likely leaking of national security information. He pardoned a drug kingpin, who has been convicted of murder. He pardoned a group of Hasidic Jews in New York that have bilked the government of over $40 million.
Four of them had been “convicted of robbing the government of $11,000,000, by setting up a fictitious yeshiva to receive federal student aid money.” The school did not even exist. The convicts and their attorneys justified their actions “on the grounds that . . . the funds were channeled back into the community. lol
Cause that investigation was derailed by Libby, (and others), obstructing justice.
Oh please. That’s such a load of nonsense. You’re going to tell me that a guy as smart as Patrick Fitzgerald and his team who had boatloads of money at their disposal had their entire case given the kibosh because of conflicting statements regarding what Scooter Libby told the media?
You’re not serious, are you?
Some other people in the history of recorded time got away with the same things Scooter did, therefore Scooter should too!
Gina,
Your use of the word “Billary” and your implication that Hillary would make the exact same mistakes as Bill leads me to believe that you are an extreme misogynist who doesn’t believe that wives can have minds of their own.
… Cause that investigation was derailed by Libby, (and others), obstructing justice.
Except that when Fitz got the case, he already knew that Armitage was the leaker. Libby’s testimony was immaterial to the (concluded) investigation and was subborned soley for creating a perjury trap.
Hey, Shorter Me: those figures aren’t “throughout the history of recorded time”, they were witnesses in this very trial!!!
I still don’t understand the conservative argument in favor of commuting the sentence. It seems to be a non-stop parade of anger having it’s focus on Bill Clinton, with very little on the fact that Scooter obstructed justice.
I still don’t understand the conservative argument in favor of commuting the sentence. It seems to be a non-stop parade of anger having it’s focus on Bill Clinton, with very little on the fact that Scooter obstructed justice.
They don’t have an argument; they have a position, namely that Republicans can do no wrong. Remember: Republicans are criminals. Always.
They don’t have an argument; they have a position, namely that Republicans can do no wrong. Remember: Republicans are criminals. Always.
Actually, Mike, by commuting only a portion of Libby’s unjust sentence, and not pardoning him at all, Bush, the big Kahuna Republican, is nnot at alls aying what you are saying. You would be 100% wrong.
Thank you very much (my God, I hope I don’t get Nimmer caps for having said this)
Convicted. Of felony offenses–three of them. By a jury. Appeals for stay of sentence denied. By a judge. Who cited the jury decision. (And lest the spectre of partisanship rear its head, the judge was a Republican, appointed by Republicans.)
Come on, Wingnuts, admit it: Scooter was busted for a serious matter and convicted. Forget anybody else or anything else, this is all that matters.
And what happened to the George W. Bush who, as Texas governor, once commented on the 152 people whose executions he presided over, “I don’t believe my role [as governor] is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence t
Sorry, but the “Clinton did it, too!” defense doesn’t work here. That would only be the case if President Bush did this at the end of his term.
Dugger: the reason Scooter got a commutation instead of a pardon is that it allows the appeals process to continue, meaning Scooter cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. Convenient, eh?
I LOVE this!
Defend to the last man, Rethugs. SPIN that story, drag out Clinton, spin it, baby.
America is watching.
America will remember.
You think 2006 was a disaster for the GOP? Wait and see.
I hope this story gets beaten nonstop for WEEKS.
Of course, if pictures of Paris Hilton’s menstrual indignities suffered while in prison surface, all bets are off.
I LOVE this!
Defend to the last man, Rethugs. SPIN that story, drag out Clinton, spin it, baby.
America is watching.
America will remember.
You think 2006 was a disaster for the GOP? Wait and see.
I hope this story gets beaten nonstop for WEEKS.
Of course, if pictures of Paris Hilton’s menstrual indignities suffered while in prison surface, all bets are off.
I am just glad cons like Farris are finally upset about ” I can’t recall” and faulty memory bullshit excuses. Now if he can search his memory banks and go through the zillion times I have heard this administration say this maybe he can understand that obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury is the real reason his ass is classified as a criminal. All this “but Clinton…” is an excuse because some can’t defend Libby. The Ronald Reagan “I don’t know” strategy doesn’t apply unless Republicans inherently have Alzheimers disease from their 20’s on. Stop treating grown adults like they are lobotomy patients.
Actually, it just proves Bush is soft on crimes involving classified info. After all, his Justice department gave virtually the same hand-slap plea deal to one Sandy Berger.
…which should bother you, correct? Again your response is spun so that you can blame Clinton. At least your inching toward saying Libby committed a crime, but are you okay with how Bush does business or not?
That’s it, now it’s the “Sandy Berger” defense!!
FACTS:
1. Berger did not have his sentence commuted, nor was he pardoned.
2. Berger took his own notes from the National Archives, which had already scanned images of them.
3. The 911 commission said it had no need for any of the materials taken by Berger.
Deny, deflect, distort, spin, baby, spin!!
I am laughing so hard, even though you make me sick to my stomach.
You do realize Kirsten Powers is on your blogroll, right?
Here’s my question–why does the administration hire so many people incapable of remembering anything beyond their own name? And why doesn’t this bother the administration supporters? Are we supposed to praise incompetence and mental faculty issues because at least they can’t be charged with a crime when they’re amnesiacs?
a) the dumber they are the less likely they are to ask questions
b) because to them nothing is as important as their ideology, not law or ethics or anything
That’s the obvious answer. I want to hear how the supporters spin it.
“Memory is an overrated liberal construct designed to subvert America! The only important memories to have are that 9/11 happened and George W. Bush saved us from terrorists!”
No matter what. Libby was not the leaker and Fitz knew this ahead of time. Nevertheless, he blew millions of taxpayer dolalrs. Libby got big time punishment because a liberal (Wash DC) jury with an ex WaPo reporter (reason for appeal? - biased jury) believed MSM reporters over him.
Memory has a liberal bias.
“No matter what. Libby was not the leaker and Fitz knew this ahead of time. Nevertheless, he blew millions of taxpayer dolalrs.”
Did it ever occur to you that Libby knows who authorized the leak in the first place? And this information was the reason Scooter lied in the first place?
And there’s more than one leaker, so don’t blame it all on Armitage.
Fitzgerald went after what he felt he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. He probably has shitloads of evidence pointing higher up, but perhaps doesn’t feel he can prove it. At least not without a gallon of Sodium Pentathol.
And where the fuck is Novak in all of this?
“Libby was not the leaker and Fitz knew this ahead of time.”
Perhaps you have not read Mr. Fitzgerald’s pre-sentencing memo to the trial judge:
“Also early in the investigation, investigators learned the identities of three officials - Deputy Secretary of State Richar Armitage, Senior Adviser to the President Karl Rove, an Mr. Libby, The Vice-President’s Chief of Staff - who had disclosed information regarding Ms. Wilson’ts CIA employment to reporters. What was not apparent, however, were the answers to a series of questions central to whether criminal charges arising from the unauthorized disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity as an intelligence agent were both viable and appropriate.”
Quaker, The ‘leaker’ is the first one to disclose to full identity to an unauthorized individual - the press (i.e., Armitage). I read your sentencing memo as saying, in a roundabout way, that criminal charges were not viable/appropriate re leakage for any of the three. When did he know that? Why keep on investigating? Isn’t what follows a classic fishing expedition.
Are you really, really comfortable with Libby going to jail in this circumstance - at worst a he said/she said lie about conversations with reporters concerning a non-crime?
Quaker, The ‘leaker’ is the first one to disclose to full identity to an unauthorized individual - the press (i.e., Armitage). I read your sentencing memo as saying, in a roundabout way, that criminal charges were not viable/appropriate re leakage for any of the three. When did he know that? Why keep on investigating? Isn’t what follows a classic fishing expedition.
Are you really, really comfortable with Libby going to jail in this circumstance - at worst a he said/she said lie about conversations with reporters concerning a non-crime?
Quaker, The ‘leaker’ is the first one to disclose to full identity to an unauthorized individual - the press (i.e., Armitage).
That’s an interesting interpretation.
Armitage was revealed as the person who disclosed Plame’s identity to Robert Novak. However, evidence showed that others, including Libby and Rove, also passed this information to reporters in advance of Mr. Novak’s article identifying Plame as a CIA “operative.”
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe Mr. Libby’s defense counsel offered your arugment at trial.
- at worst a he said/she said lie about conversations with reporters concerning a non-crime?
Nine witnesses contradicted Mr. Libby’s account of events and documentary evidence back them up. A jury (remember juries? The cornerstone of the American justice system?) found Mr. Libby guilty, and he was sentenced in accordance with federal guidelines. He’s availing himself of his right to appeal that verdict.
Yes, I’m comfortable with him going to jail.
I read your sentencing memo as saying, in a roundabout way, that criminal charges were not viable/appropriate re leakage for any of the three.
Mr. Fitzgerald addresses your interpretation directly: “What was not apparent, however, were the answers to a series of questions central to whether criminal charges arising from the unauthorized disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity as an intelligence agent were both viable and appropriate.”
Mr. Fitzgerald asserts that Mr. Libby prevented him from finding the answers to those questions.
“Why keep on investigating?”
To find out who authorized it.
Wow. These are the same idiots who insisted for months that Valerie Plame was not undercover and that no underlying crime had occurred. Now they seem to have moved on to more recylced bullshit, such as there was only one possible leaker (Armitage, not true), that it is simply faulty memory, and he/said she said. What you people all seem to miss is that Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative was leaked by multiple sources, multiple times over the course of a few days. It was a concerted effort.
You idiots also don’t seem to understand the seriousness of casual exposure of our nation’s most valuable national security assets- our undercover intelligence resources. Every contact of Plame’s was endangered. Every operative that used the same front company was endangered, and every one of their contacts. It’s why that kind of leak is akin to TREASON. Particularly when it is done on purpose, with malice, and for politcal reasons.
And Dugger:
“If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”
Bush actually told the truth there. Of course, he meant us to take the opposite meaning, but he did take care of the law-breaker personally.
OT: regarding the screen capture of Ms. Powers in the article–NEVER trust a TV personality who talks from the side of her mouth like that.
Well, the good news is that if Democrats win the White House in ‘08, it’s a good bet that convicted felons like Libby will get the chance to vote again. So vote Democratic!
Bush will probably pardon Libby on his way out.
Pidgro may be right and Bush may pardon Libby as he heads out the door, but there is an important aspect to the commutation that is being overlooked. Bush has preserved Libby’s 5th Amendment rights by keeping his conviction “live” and on appeal. That allows Libby to pull a Gonzales should Congress go after him or during the Plame/Wilson civil suit.
Oh didn’t you hear? That’s not true solely because Jay said so.
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe Mr. Libby’s defense counsel offered your arugment at trial.
I don’t know but I suspect you’re right, but then Libby wasn’t at trial defending himself against leaking.
And once something is leaked - its leaked. Its out there. Neither the second or 22nd person discussing it after its leaked or us now can be held guilty for re-leakage.
And I simply don’t know how to interpret Fitz remarks.
I know you think its all partisan but I am troubled by a man going to jail - caught not for the crime in question but rather as part of the mechanics of the investigative process. And no I don’t understand how Armitage and Novak and others are all scot free (sorry for the slur against my be-kilted countrymen) and Libby is sentenced to years in jail.
Its just not right. And yes I know the jury finding is legal etc
“And once something is leaked - its leaked. Its out there. Neither the second or 22nd person discussing it after its leaked or us now can be held guilty for re-leakage.”
If someone tells three people to leak this information, they are all guilty. This cause was always about finding out who that someone is, and now we will never now who authorized it.
And once something is leaked - its leaked. Its out there. Neither the second or 22nd person discussing it after its leaked or us now can be held guilty for re-leakage.
As I said before, that’s an interesting interpretation. Mr. Fitzgerald is on the record with a different reading of the law.
And no I don’t understand how Armitage and Novak and others are all scot free … and Libby is sentenced to years in jail.
Allow me to give you a hand with that. Mr. Novak is a journalist, a profession specifically exempted by the statute in question in deference to the press’ First Amendment guarantees. As for Mr. Armitage, it appears that Mr. Fitzgerald did not find sufficient evidence to bring charges against him. Luckily for Mr. Armitage, he did not invent stories to tell to the FBI or the grand jury.
Libby did not have to lie. He did not have to obstruct justice. It was purely voluntary. He did not have to say that Tim Russert told him about Valarie Plame. He had several chances to modify his story using the same means as Rove, the suddenly refreshed memory.
The mechanics of investigations is what their purpose is. You investigate to ascertain the facts and the truth. When someone deliberately obstructs that investigation by lying, it’s a simple matter: Libby is a crook and a liar.
By commuting his sentence, Bush as told everyone else in the White House that no matter what you do, if you do it to protect the president and/or vice president from criminal liability, he will protect you from punishment. That is just what his daddy did with the Iran-Contra Six. It’s a Bush prerogative. Clinton, Carter, Ford never pardoned anyone to cover up their own crimes.
I understand all the Bush tribalists are in a lather. They are above the law. Laws are for little people, democrats, the poor, the non-white: nobodies, not important neo-Cons and servants of the rich and powerful.
And just so we’re clear on the timeline, Dugger, what you propose is this:
Monday - Dick reveals the name of an undercover CIA agent to a journalist, Bob. Bob keeps it to himself.
Tuesday - Lou reveals the name of the same undercover CIA agent to a different journalist, Jane. Lou is not aware of the conversation between Dick and Bob.
Wednesday - Bob releases an article revealing the name of the CIA agent to the public.
You’re saying that Lou is off the hook because Dick leaked first? What if Jane prints the information first? Is Dick still the snitch and Lou is just a hard-working public servant?
“it appears that Mr. Fitzgerald did not find sufficient evidence to bring charges against him. ”
Well, yes we agree there.
And you forget ‘Tueday evening’ wherein:
Fitz decides that Lou and Bob committed no crime re leakage’, but that Lou alone must go to jail three years because his after-the-real-leakage accounts of conversations with reporters were not, per a DC jury, honest.
And am I right that you are suggesting we wink at Armitage’s ‘crime’ - because Woodward evidently didn’t do anything with the illegally disclosed information - i.e., it did no real harm (a stricture you are not willing to apply to Libby). And if the real leakage was not a crime, then, again, are you comfortable with Libby going to jail 3 years as part of the investigative process of that non-crime. And if that does not at all trouble you say morally, does it concern you as a tax paying citizen? Did we get enough ‘bang’ for our buck?
Timeline, bub.
And you forget ‘Tueday evening’ wherein:
Your “Tuesday evening” happens months after the scenario I described above. You’re fouling the timeline. My analogy only addresses your claim that after one guy leaks, all bets are off. And you have nimbly avoided that question. Good work!!
As for the rest:
-I am not suggesting anyone wink at Armitage or anyone else. However, in this country, a prosecutor has to present evidence of participation in a crime to obtain an indictment against a person. That a prosecutor cannot gather sufficient evidence against one person does not let all others off. Your proposed reason for winkage is preposterous.
-Asked and answered. Yes, I am comfortable with a defendant charged and convicted under the laws of the nation being sentenced within applicable guidelines.
-It does not concern me as a tax-paying citizen.
-I believe the system worked as well as one could hope, given the obstruction of the process by Mr. Libby.
Any more questions?
While we’re at it, let’s clear up another timeline so we can understand just how faulty Mr. Libby says his memory is.
According to witness testimony and documentary evidence, Libby discussed Plame and her job at the CIA:
in June 2003, with the Vice-President
on June 11, with a ’senior CIA officer’
on June 12, with Mr. Armitage
on June 14, with a CIA briefer
on June 23, with Judith Miller
on July 7, with Ari Fleischer
no later than July 8, with the assistant to the vice-president for special affairs
July 8, with Judith Miller again
July 8, with the office of the counsel to the Vice President
However, in the space of just three months, Mr. Libby “forgot” all of these events and told the FBI that he never knew about Plame’s job until Tim Russert told him on July 10.
With a memory like that, it’s amazing he can find his way home at night.
A little icing on that cake?
Mr. Russert says he didn’t tell Libby that.
Any more questions?
Sure.
A secret revealed is no longer a secret. Maybe there is a technicality somewhere about multiple leakages, but Fitz didn’t use it in either case for Libby or Armitage. So, either neither was the leaker (and there was an even earlier leaker other than Armitage) or it wasn’t a crime to begin with. Take your pick, but I still don’t understand why the investigation continued.
You understand that it is no crime at all to talk about Plame’s status among people cleared to do so. So Libby could talk to Cheney and if both were cleared, which they both surely were, - no crime committed. However, if Libby or Armitage or Novak or you or me were cleared and then first revealed that data about Plame which is classified to someone who is not cleared then you have a violation of the Intelligence Act. So it looks to me like Ms Miller would be your first potential timeline violation for Libby - June 23. But Armitage leaked to the clearly uncleared Woodward June 13 - thats now public knowledge.
So you seem to be satisfied that this violation by Armitage, the real outing of an intelligence agent (if there ever was one), go unpunished and you personally consider it no big deal - the outing of an intelligence agent. And IF, IF you tell me its not a crime per Fitz (what Armitage did), then what in the hell was the money being spent for except as a political vendetta. Was it ‘who leaked Plame” or lets see if we can trap a member of the Admin with a multi-million dollar investigation of a non crime.
“Yes, I am comfortable with a defendant charged and convicted under the laws of the nation being sentenced within applicable guidelines.”
Really. If its technically legal, it must be just. That what you’re saying, Quaker? Like when racist murderers got off in the south because all-white juries let them go. Its OK, because, by George, it was technically legal?
Hmm. If Bush were really Dr Evil, wonder why he doesn’t conduct a massive investigation of every Democrat in Congress for say, killing Pres Kennedy. Ask them millions of questions and then the minute there is a contradiction, take it to a grand jury in the most republican suburb in the country. Convict the justice-obstructing b*stards and give them the max the laws allow. And that would be OK, because it would be technically legal.
Right.
Sheesh. Sometimes it seems like you’re not really trying to understand. Allow me to sort it out a bit at a time.
A secret revealed is no longer a secret. Maybe there is a technicality somewhere about multiple leakages, but Fitz didn’t use it in either case for Libby or Armitage. So, either neither was the leaker (and there was an even earlier leaker other than Armitage) or it wasn’t a crime to begin with. Take your pick, but I still don’t understand why the investigation continued.
The Armitage-did-it-first argument just doesn’t wash. Fitzgerald apparently doesn’t buy your theory that once it is discovered that one person revealed the identity of a covert agent, no one else who revealed that person’s identity–before or after–can be charged under the statute. Put succinctly, there can be more than one leaker, they can gain knowledge of secret information in different ways, and they can leak independently of each other.
You understand that it is no crime at all to talk about Plame’s status among people cleared to do so.
Of course I do. What is criminal is to lie to the FBI or a grand jury when you’re asked about that conversation. Mr. Libby had no less than nine separate conversations about Ms. Plame and her job at the CIA in the course of just over a month. It’s possible that all nine conversations were entirely legal. However, telling lies to the FBI and the grand jury is still illegal.
So you seem to be satisfied that this violation by Armitage, the real outing of an intelligence agent (if there ever was one), go unpunished and you personally consider it no big deal - the outing of an intelligence agent.
My feelings about Mr. Armitage’s actions have not been discussed to this point, and they’re not germane. However, you did ask why Mr. Armitage was not charged. The answer, apparently, is that Mr. Armitage did not know of Ms. Plame’s covert status when he revealed her position–a requirement explicitly spelled out in the statute for charges to be brought. Additionally, when he first realized that he was the source of the leak, he stepped forward and admitted his involvement to the FBI. It does not appear that he made up false stories.
Why was money being spent on an investigation? Why not ask Mr. Ashcroft who appointed the prosecutor? The CIA reported a crime to the DOJ. It would seem negligent for them not to investigate. Additionally, Mr. Armitage was able to account for where he learned about Ms. Plame’s job. Where Mr. Libby learned about it remains unclear. He says he learned about her from Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert and all the evidence presented indicate that’s not true. It’s possible that there was another person involved who provided the information to Mr. Libby and prompted him to disclose it. Mr. Libby sticks to his claim that he learned it from reporters and simply passed it along.
And a political vendetta? By whom? Fitzgerald? Please explain.
Really. If its technically legal, it must be just. That what you’re saying, Quaker? Like when racist murderers got off in the south because all-white juries let them go. Its OK, because, by George, it was technically legal?
Both preposterous and ugly. There is no evidence of misconduct by the jury, judge, or prosecutor in this case. Your analogy is inflammatory and insulting. Ptui!
Hmm. If Bush were really Dr Evil, wonder why he doesn’t conduct a massive investigation of every Democrat in Congress for say, killing Pres Kennedy.
What?
Ask them millions of questions and then the minute there is a contradiction, take it to a grand jury in the most republican suburb in the country. Convict the justice-obstructing b*stards and give them the max the laws allow. And that would be OK, because it would be technically legal.
I wouldn’t put it past them. Nevertheless, if the prosecutor could demonstrate that any of the people questioned made stuff up and stuck to it, even when every other piece of testimony and evidence contradicts their story and even when given every reasonable chance to amend their story, then yes, they’d have to go to jail for it.
Maybe all that Republican “rule of law” talk is starting to get to me.
crud.
(Sorry for double-posting such a long post. My bad tag made the mash of the whole thing.–QiB)
Sheesh. Sometimes it seems like you’re not really trying to understand. Allow me to sort it out a bit at a time.
A secret revealed is no longer a secret. Maybe there is a technicality somewhere about multiple leakages, but Fitz didn’t use it in either case for Libby or Armitage. So, either neither was the leaker (and there was an even earlier leaker other than Armitage) or it wasn’t a crime to begin with. Take your pick, but I still don’t understand why the investigation continued.
The Armitage-did-it-first argument just doesn’t wash. Fitzgerald apparently doesn’t buy your theory that once it is discovered that one person revealed the identity of a covert agent, no one else who revealed that person’s identity–before or after–can be charged under the statute. Put succinctly, there can be more than one leaker, they can gain knowledge of secret information in different ways, and they can leak independently of each other.
You understand that it is no crime at all to talk about Plame’s status among people cleared to do so.
Of course I do. What is criminal is to lie to the FBI or a grand jury when you’re asked about that conversation. Mr. Libby had no less than nine separate conversations about Ms. Plame and her job at the CIA in the course of just over a month. It’s possible that all nine conversations were entirely legal. However, telling lies to the FBI and the grand jury is still illegal.
So you seem to be satisfied that this violation by Armitage, the real outing of an intelligence agent (if there ever was one), go unpunished and you personally consider it no big deal - the outing of an intelligence agent.
My feelings about Mr. Armitage’s actions have not been discussed to this point, and they’re not germane. However, you did ask why Mr. Armitage was not charged. The answer, apparently, is that Mr. Armitage did not know of Ms. Plame’s covert status when he revealed her position–a requirement explicitly spelled out in the statute for charges to be brought. Additionally, when he first realized that he was the source of the leak, he stepped forward and admitted his involvement to the FBI. It does not appear that he made up false stories.
Why was money being spent on an investigation? Why not ask Mr. Ashcroft who appointed the prosecutor? The CIA reported a crime to the DOJ. It would seem negligent for them not to investigate. Additionally, Mr. Armitage was able to account for where he learned about Ms. Plame’s job. Where Mr. Libby learned about it remains unclear. He says he learned about her from Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert and all the evidence presented indicate that’s not true. It’s possible that there was another person involved who provided the information to Mr. Libby and prompted him to disclose it. Mr. Libby sticks to his claim that he learned it from reporters and simply passed it along.
And a political vendetta? By whom? Fitzgerald? Please explain.
Really. If its technically legal, it must be just. That what you’re saying, Quaker? Like when racist murderers got off in the south because all-white juries let them go. Its OK, because, by George, it was technically legal?
Both preposterous and ugly. There is no evidence of misconduct by the jury, judge, or prosecutor in this case. Your analogy is inflammatory and insulting. Ptui!
Hmm. If Bush were really Dr Evil, wonder why he doesn’t conduct a massive investigation of every Democrat in Congress for say, killing Pres Kennedy.
What?
Ask them millions of questions and then the minute there is a contradiction, take it to a grand jury in the most republican suburb in the country. Convict the justice-obstructing b*stards and give them the max the laws allow. And that would be OK, because it would be technically legal.
I wouldn’t put it past them. Nevertheless, if the prosecutor could demonstrate that any of the people questioned made stuff up and stuck to it, even when every other piece of testimony and evidence contradicts their story and even when given every reasonable chance to amend their story, then yes, they’d have to go to jail for it.
Maybe all that Republican “rule of law” talk is starting to get to me.
To bring it to a far more concise point:
Mr. Fitzgerald convinced a jury that Mr. Libby lied to the FBI and to a grand jury. That is a crime punishable by imprisonment. Many others have gone to jail for the same offense.
The jury did not find Mr. Libby guilty of “forgetting.” That was, in fact, Mr. Libby’s defense. The jury didn’t buy it.
And really!
A Republican defendant in Washington is like a black defendant in the old South?
That’s a little hysterical, don’t you think?
Not hysterical, but a tad hyperbolic perhaps - in trying to make the point that your position re Libby -that if a jury did it and the process is legal it is then OK- is a tad close-minded.
But I see you now concede that if the cause is one you agree with (like the plight of some blacks in the old south), then the old jury-must-be-right rule gets tossed. At least the starkness of my example gave you an easy riposte. But I wonder where you draw the line. I see its certainly drawn before Rs and conservatives. They always deserve what they get. Like the boys Nifong indicted, right. They got what they deserved because that was a legal indictment.
I never complain about the quality of other’s construction/typing - with reason.
Dugger how do you get to be so intentionally ignorant and intellectually dishonest?
1. A covert operative’s identity was leaked, a potential crime was committed.
2. At the request of the CIA an investigation ensues.
3. A special prosecutor is engaged.
4. It is discovered that there were MULTIPLE LEAKERS.
5. In the course of the investigation, one of the LEAKERS, lies to the FBI and the Grand Jury multiple times about his involvement.
6. That is a crime in and of itself, for which the obstructing perjurer was sentenced.
7. If we cede to your stupid argument that only Armitage can be responsible for the underlying crime, that can only be used to argue that Libby had less motive to lie. But, since Libby didn’t know about Armitage before being interviewed, that doesn’t fly.
8. MULTIPLE LEAKERS, leaking multiple times suggests a conspiracy. It is therefore likely that Libby was covering.
But I wonder where you draw the line.
Wonder no more. If there is observable misconduct by the judge, the jury, or the prosecutor, one has good reason to question the validity of the trial.
No one has identified any such misconduct in the prosecution of Mr. Libby.
if a jury did it and the process is legal it is then OK- is a tad close-minded.
No more so than it is to assume an American election is fairly conducted. We’re blessed with a system of adversarial checks and balances that works–most of the time.
The political affiliation of the defendant is insufficient reason to doubt the integrity of the process.
The defense managed to somewhat stacked the jury, the prosecutor was a Bush appointee, so was the judge, and still Dugger wants to complain about imagined bias and political witch hunt.
Dugger, has it occurred to you that the Bush administration is made up of political Witches?
“If there is observable misconduct by the judge, the jury, or the prosecutor, one has good reason to question the validity of the trial.”
“observable”? By whom? Using what standards? Mine or yours or none of the above? I say its quite possible for an official action to be legal with no observable misconduct, and according to the law, and still be morally wrong. Doubt me? Google Genarlow Wilson (happened in my neck of the woods). You still
eschew consideration of all moral and ethical details of the Libby case and focus on the bare bone mechanics of the technical process - which you assure seem to have been OK. And the underlying presumption still seems to be that a legal injustice regarding someone to the right of you politically is either impossible or insignificant. Which is why I asked you originally if you were happy with Libby going to jail for three years based on what he actually did. And to which you basically responded - “its OK because the system did it.”
You still
eschew consideration of all moral and ethical details of the Libby case and focus on the bare bone mechanics of the technical process
Nonsense.
We’ve chewed over the “moral and ethical details” as you call them. Mr. Libby broke the law. He lied to a grand jury and to the FBI and obstructed an investigation. The jury came to a verdict on the facts and the President of the United States says that verdict should stand. The judge sentenced him according to prevailing sentencing guidelines.
Which “moral and ethical details” do you need explained again?
And the underlying presumption still seems to be that a legal injustice regarding someone to the right of you politically is either impossible or insignificant.
Still: codswallop!
Mr. Libby’s political affiliation seems more important to you than to me.
I suppose you’re also outraged about the sentence handed down to Victor Rita?
Just curious.
“Which “moral and ethical details” do you need explained again?”
A lot. Particularly those that explain why it is moral and ethical to spend millions and millions of taxpayers dollrs to investigate a ‘crime’ that the special prosecutor knew was not a crime and then send a first time ‘offender’ family man to jail for three years for lying about of conversations with reporters re a non-crime. Meanwhile the man who actually leaked the agents identity to both Novak and Woodward goes scot frappin free.
And you don’t damage my case at all by noting there is at least one more bad case out there - where the system that you seemingly wish to not question seems to make a mistake. I think it did for Genarlow Wilson and bet it has for others - including maybe Rita. I’ve said it before, the nasty little game of sending the political opposition to jail as part of ‘investigitive gotchas’ should stop. Its morally wrong (either side).
Sigh.
OK, I’ll ride around one more time with you.
why it is moral and ethical to spend millions and millions of taxpayers dollrs
Millions of dollars? That’s what it costs to run a special prosecutor’s office these days. Did the same in the Clinton administration, and Bush I, and Reagan.
to investigate a ‘crime’ that the special prosecutor knew was not a crime
Bad assumption. If you’ve been keeping up with the links I’ve been providing to Mr. Fitzgerald’s court filings, you already know that Mr. Fitzgerald did NOT know anything of the sort. He was appointed to investigate by Mr. Ashcroft and he tried to fulfill that obligation.
and then send a first time ‘offender’ family man to jail for three years
Happens all the time. Some first offenses get jail time. Some don’t. There are federal guidelines in place for perjury and obstruction. You just don’t seem to want them to apply to Mr. Libby.
for lying about of conversations with reporters re a non-crime.
Not quite. For making up a story and repeating it to the FBI and at least twice to the grand jury in which Mr. Libby said he learned about Ms. Plame’s identity from Tim Russert. This was, in fact, a lie. (I know how that word galls you, but you’ll have to live with it this time. The jury said so.) And your supposition that the conversations were about a non-crime begs the question. Re-read the second point above. No one knows whether it was a non-crime or not. Mr. Libby obstructed the investigation to find out.
Meanwhile the man who actually leaked the agents identity to both Novak and Woodward goes scot frappin free.
See, now there’s a “non-crime.” The statute on revealing the identity of covert agents says it’s against the law to knowingly out an agent. Mr. Armitage realized he was the source, stepped forward, identified his source, and explained his actions. He did NOT make up a tale that was contradicted by every other single witness interviewed on the matter!
you don’t damage my case at all by noting there is at least one more bad case out there
Hey, you started it. You’re the one who dragged Genarlow Wilson into it.
Nevertheless, I’m not sure Mr. Rita’s case is a “bad case.” His circumstances are quite similar to Mr. Libby’s however, so I’m curious as to whether you think he was railroaded also.
where the system that you seemingly wish to not question seems to make a mistake.
I’m perfectly willing to question. I just don’t see the “mistake” other than Mr. Libby’s political affiliation. That’s immaterial to the facts and conduct of the trial.
the nasty little game of sending the political opposition to jail
The political opposition? What the heck are you talking about? A REPUBLICAN attorney general chose a REPUBLICAN-appointed U.S. Attorney to act as special prosecutor. A REPUBLICAN-appointed judge presided over the trial and two REPUBLICAN appointed judges upheld the decision that he had to go to jail pending appeal. Where’s this “political opposition” you’re bawling about?
At any rate I guess I’m a bad, bad person for believing that the investigation and trial were fairly conducted and a reasonable sentence issued. You’ve yet to offer even the mildest evidence that anything else occurred.
Bah. Did it again Won’t repost this time. Figure it out.
Off! Off, dang tag!
[Oh, allright. Just because you asked so nicely.]
OK, I’ll ride around one more time with you.
why it is moral and ethical to spend millions and millions of taxpayers dollrs
Millions of dollars? That’s what it costs to run a special prosecutor’s office these days. Did the same in the Clinton administration, and Bush I, and Reagan.
to investigate a ‘crime’ that the special prosecutor knew was not a crime
Bad assumption. If you’ve been keeping up with the links I’ve been providing to Mr. Fitzgerald’s court filings, you already know that Mr. Fitzgerald did NOT know anything of the sort. He was appointed to investigate by Mr. Ashcroft and he tried to fulfill that obligation.
and then send a first time ‘offender’ family man to jail for three years
Happens all the time. Some first offenses get jail time. Some don’t. There are federal guidelines in place for perjury and obstruction. You just don’t seem to want them to apply to Mr. Libby.
for lying about of conversations with reporters re a non-crime.
Not quite. For making up a story and repeating it to the FBI and at least twice to the grand jury in which Mr. Libby said he learned about Ms. Plame’s identity from Tim Russert. This was, in fact, a lie. (I know how that word galls you, but you’ll have to live with it this time. The jury said so.) And your supposition that the conversations were about a non-crime begs the question. Re-read the second point above. No one knows whether it was a non-crime or not. Mr. Libby obstructed the investigation to find out.
Meanwhile the man who actually leaked the agents identity to both Novak and Woodward goes scot frappin free.
See, now there’s a “non-crime.” The statute on revealing the identity of covert agents says it’s against the law to knowingly out an agent. Mr. Armitage realized he was the source, stepped forward, identified his source, and explained his actions. He did NOT make up a tale that was contradicted by every other single witness interviewed on the matter!
you don’t damage my case at all by noting there is at least one more bad case out there
Hey, you started it. You’re the one who dragged Genarlow Wilson into it.
Nevertheless, I’m not sure Mr. Rita’s case is a “bad case.” His circumstances are quite similar to Mr. Libby’s however, so I’m curious as to whether you think he was railroaded also.
where the system that you seemingly wish to not question seems to make a mistake.
I’m perfectly willing to question. I just don’t see the “mistake” other than Mr. Libby’s political affiliation. That’s immaterial to the facts and conduct of the trial.
the nasty little game of sending the political opposition to jail
The political opposition? What the heck are you talking about? A REPUBLICAN attorney general chose a REPUBLICAN-appointed U.S. Attorney to act as special prosecutor. A REPUBLICAN-appointed judge presided over the trial and two REPUBLICAN appointed judges upheld the decision that he had to go to jail pending appeal. Where’s this “political opposition” you’re bawling about?
At any rate I guess I’m a bad, bad person for believing that the investigation and trial were fairly conducted and a reasonable sentence issued. You’ve yet to offer even the mildest evidence that anything else occurred.
And just so you know, Victor Rita took his case all the way to the Supreme Court. By a 6-3 vote, the supremes said, “Sure, 33 months for a first time offender is reasonable.”
Bush appointees Alito and Roberts voted with the majority.
Quaker
Hey, I’m not bawling. I think the legal, within-sentencing-guidelines punishment meted out to Libby was flat out unjust.
What an Alice in Wonderland world! In an investigation set up to see who outed Plame, the man who outed the agent- and told Novak- (IYO) deserves no punishment because he admitted that he outed the agent and Fitz says that was OK. You evidently have no independent judgenmnt here - Fitz says Ok to out an agent, then OK.
You want a to out an agent? No problema amigo! But if one of your buddies then lies about some of details of your outing the agent, don’t worry. We’ll throw him in jail.
And spare me the Fitz is a Repub schtick (everything Zell M says about Dems is ubiased right?). The left has been screaming for R heads to roll on this thing from day one. Remember Lil Joe crowing about seeing Rove frog marched. It was a political vendetta (Rs caved) from day one and Libby will be a true (legal) political prisoner.
You’re being hysterical.
What an Alice in Wonderland world! In an investigation set up to see who outed Plame, the man who outed the agent- and told Novak- (IYO) deserves no punishment because he admitted that he outed the agent and Fitz says that was OK.
He also explained where he got the information and what he knew at the time he told Novack. If you read that statute, you’ll see that state of mind is a requirement of the law.
Whether or not it’s OK with me or OK with Fitzgerald is immaterial–it’s the law!
You keep referring to Armitage as “the man who outed Plame” as if he was the only one. That’s just not true. Mr. Libby discussed her identity and her job with several reporters, separately from Mr. Armitage.
Mr. Fitzgerald was assigned by the Attorney General to find out if anyone (not just Mr. Armitage) had broken the law in doing so.
You evidently have no independent judgenmnt here - Fitz says Ok to out an agent, then OK.
Why is this about my judgment? I thought we were talking about the jury’s judgment–the one you keep saying is so unfair, but can’t tell me why. At any rate, you’re quite wrong. I do have independent judgment on this–you just don’t like my opinion because it was a Republican who was found guilty.
You want a to out an agent? No problema amigo!
Hysteria! Of course it’s a problem. Is it illegal? That depends on whether you broke the laws currently on the books!
But if one of your buddies then lies about some of details of your outing the agent, don’t worry. We’ll throw him in jail.
Except that’s NOT what Mr. Libby lied about. He was not accused of lying about Mr. Armitage’s actions. He lied about his own actions and was contradicted by a long string of witnesses. Even when he had the opportunity to pull a Rove and “amend” his testimony, he stuck to his lies. Why? Who knows?
And spare me the Fitz is a Repub schtick (everything Zell M says about Dems is ubiased right?).
No, I won’t. You keep insisting this is a “political vendetta” but a vendetta by who? Not the attorney general. Not the prosecutor. Not the judge, the jury, or the appeals court. Who is running a vendetta? You keep refusing to tell.
Remember Lil Joe crowing about seeing Rove frog marched. It was a political vendetta (Rs caved) from day one and Libby will be a true (legal) political prisoner.
Wait! Do I understand correctly? Wilson makes a comment and the entire Republican establishment of Washington D.C. rushes to carry out his wishes? Is that your vendetta?
Really, Dugs, this has gone past ridiculous. Let’s recap. You can pick any one of the following and tell me where I’m going wrong. But stamping your little feet and shouting “It’s not fair! It’s not fair!” doesn’t provide much opportunity for adult discussion.
Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate who revealed Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters.
Patrick Fitzgerald ran his investigation and found three people who had discussed her identity with reporters: Armitage, Libby, and Rove.
Fitzgerald apparently did not find evidence that Mr. Armitage broke any laws.
Fitzgerald did NOT “know it was a non-crime” because he was not investigating ONLY who revealed Plame to Novak.
Libby discussed Plame with many people over the course of 5 weeks. However, he lied to the grand jury when he was asked how he learned about Plame’s job at the CIA.
Mr. Libby was found guilty by a jury and sentenced according to current sentencing guidelines.
Now:
How is this a “political vendetta”?
Which part isn’t fair?
Is it only “not fair” in Mr. Libby’s case? Or is it also not fair when applied to others?
Get a hold of yourself, man!