Captain's Quarters -

At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying.

People keep getting this case wrong. Fitzgerald prosecuted it as he should have. First of all, outing a covert agent (by her own government) assigned to work on the very same threat we invaded Iraq over is not a "run-of-the-mill" case. Sorry.

Second, Armitage, Libby and Rove were ALL leakers and all could have broken the statute protecting covert agents. Armitage and Libby spoke with Novak and Miller (both reporters) respectively on the same day. It just so happens that Novak published a story while Miller did not.

The statute states that if a government official had learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally passes that identity to a person/people who are not authorized to receive that information knowing it will reveal that person as a covert agent, then the law had been broken.

Armitage, Libby and Rove all passed on classified information to people who were not authorized to receive it. Fitzgerald was investigating the "knowingly" part when Libby lied to him. Fitzgerald said this obstruction prohibited him from determining whether Libby broke the law. Hence the perjury charge. Not only did he say it prohibited him from determining Libby's guilt, but also Rove, Armitage and Cheney... he said Libby's obstruction...

made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions.

The motivations of their actions being the "knowingly" part of the equation needs for a conviction.

But, regardless, Rove, Libby and Armitage all broke their confidentially agreement when they passed this information on. Bush promised that the leakers would be dealt with severely. Libby and Armitage are both gone from the White House. Why no action against Rove.

Re: Tom Shipley at June 19, 2007 10:19 AM

If in 2003, George Tenet's job description was labeled "covert," that still wouldn't make him covert. The same applies to Plame. She may have been covert a few years earlier (still doubtful, since she worked openly in an American embassy) but she certainly wasn't covert in 2003, by any CIA standard, except maybe by some outdated job classification in a personnel record.

Please, Tom. Plame was not 'covert'.
Fitzgerald played Nifong. Except in this case, the defense team was wanting, the prosecutorial misconduct was insufficiently challenged, the witnesses were (seemingly) less smarmy, and the judge was also of the Durham variety.
You clearly favor selective prosecution and selective enforcement of the laws. And you are not alone.

I support keeping Libby in the can if he is guilty. However, if he is guilty of this horrible crime, lying about the outing of Valerie Plame, why did not Fitzgerald go after the leaker? Why isn't the press up in arms that Richard Armitage is not being prosecuted?

Answer those questions and it is clear that this is a case of targeted and selective prosecution by Fitzgerald. He was big game fishing for Karl Rove or Dick Cheney and offered Armitage immunity believing that he had the goods on these men. Initially, the indictment of only Libby was a public embarassment for Fitzgerald, but over time, he has grown proud of his catch.

Thinking liberals such as Cohen must find it a little pathetic that Fitzgerald has taken such a small fish to the taxidermist.

Captain

Read the massive posts over at JustOneMinute and they discuss how pardon is the wrong tactic.

Commutation or Respite are the way to go to keep Libby out of jail pending appeal if the emergency appeal is not timely enough.

The downside of a pardon is it closes the door on any chance of doing a Nifong on the Fitz character and ends any review of the judge in this case.

Constitutional issues and other things like that are bigger fishes to fry.

Please, Tom. Plame was not 'covert'.
Fitzgerald played Nifong. Except in this case, the defense team was wanting, the prosecutorial misconduct was insufficiently challenged, the witnesses were (seemingly) less smarmy, and the judge was also of the Durham variety.
You clearly favor selective prosecution and selective enforcement of the laws. And you are not alone.

Why no action against Rove.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 19, 2007 10:19 AM

Because there was no real evidence, much less proof that Rove broke any laws. You saying he ''leaked'', or Fitzgerald telling it to reporters doesn't make it so. It has to be proven in a court of law, and it has to be proven to be a crime. Fitzgerald didn't even try. In fact he said it was not relevent to Libby's case.

Saying he was obstructed by Libby doesn't wash. He knows the so-called truth now. Why no prosecutions?

You're still playing the same broken record.

RBMN,

According to Fitzgerald's case summary, he found that from the time Plame was stationed at Langley in 2002, she traveled overseas 7 times using official and NOC cover.

The 1982 statute defines a covert agent as someone who was stationed or served overseas as a covert agent within the past 5 years.

Is that not good enough for you?

Checksum is right.

>>he said Libby's obstruction...

made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions.

The motivations of their actions being the "knowingly" part of the equation needs for a conviction.

That is bogus. Libby said he didn't further a conspiracy to out a covert agent; Libby has been convicted of perjury regarding what he knew and when he knew it. Those are facts that could be set before a jury to help prosecute Big Men for the "crime" of outing Plame.

The reason it isn't being prosecuted is there's reasonable doubt Plame was a covert agent. Tenet may testify she was; Novak has and will continue to testify that he called the CIA and got a different answer before he published the info.

You want your cake and eat it too; you'll shriek the conspiracy is obvious and real, and you'll claim it prevents you from proving it too. Phooey.

What he knew and when he knew it is a large part of determining whether or not this crime was committed. If Libby knew Plame was a covert agent when he told Miller Wilson's wife worked for the FBI, then he committed a crime.

What he knew and when he knew it is a large part of determining whether or not this crime was committed. If Libby knew Plame was a covert agent when he told Miller Wilson's wife worked for the FBI, then he committed a crime.

You have stated before, that you conclude he did so know, and was so directed by VP Cheney. You have argued that as fact. You certainly aren't as confused as Fitzgerald represents himself to be.

And now Fitzgerald could call Libby as a witness in a prosecution of Cheney/Rove, have him deny there was a conspiracy, have him recount his version of his contacts with the press, and have him admit he was convicted of perjury on those matters. The prosecutor can use the fact of his perjury conviction as evidence in support of the conspiracy, he has a century of organized crime prosecutions to rely on.

Why no action against Rove.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 19, 2007 10:19 AM

Because there was no real evidence, much less proof that Rove broke any laws. You saying he ''leaked'', or Fitzgerald telling it to reporters doesn't make it so. It has to be proven in a court of law, and it has to be proven to be a crime. Fitzgerald didn't even try. In fact he said it was not relevent to Libby's case.

Saying he was obstructed by Libby doesn't wash. He knows the so-called truth now. Why no prosecutions?

You're still playing the same broken record.

that you conclude he did so know

No I haven't. If I you believe I did, show me where.

My point in this thread is that Libby's obstruction directly impeded Fitzgerald's investigation. This is not a fishing expedition. Libby's perjury was a signifigant obstruction of an investigation of whether three men knowingly outed a CIA agent.

Because there was no real evidence,

Um, yes there is. Matt Cooper testified about an interview in which Rove told him Wilson's wife works for the CIA on wmds and authorized his trip to Niger (which isn't true).

There was also an e-mail that Cooper sent to his bureau chief after the interview that summarized the conversation and matches his testimony.

Novak also testified that Rove was one of the two sources for his now infamous column.

Tom, give it up! I'm sure that you're an intelligent man but if you could see how foolish your poor reasoning is, you would be embarrassed!

Tom, give it up! I'm sure that you're an intelligent man but if you could see how foolish your poor reasoning is, you would be embarrassed!

Tom,
According to Novak, the non partisan gunslinger who spilled the beans was none other than Armitage. He (Novak) then called Rove who said something along the lines of "oh you heard that too". So in this case, it was Novak telling Rove information and then Rove confirming it, not Rove leaking to Novak.

And again, Armitage, the non partisan gun slinger leaked this information to Novak who based his column on that info. He previously leaked the info to Bob Woodward a month earlier, though Woodward didn't write about it.

So there you have your leaker. Now break down for us in detail why Armitage is not in jail right now, or even being prosecuted when Plame was so covert and such a big crime had been comitted. Was Armitage in league with Rove and Cheney and Libby to discredit
Plame, or did he have his own conspiracy going.

We're seriously interested in knowing, if you are so vociferous about getting the guy who outed Valerie Plame why you are so quiet about the leaker not having any charges brought against him? Are you suggesting there were two conspiracies going on to out Valerie Plame working on their own or was Armitage working with Libby and did he leak this info at the behest of the vice presidents office (Armitages leak).

There is disagreementabout whether or not Plame was covert, whether she was covered by the statute, whether people leaking the info knew she was covert, who authorized Joe Wilsons trip etc.

But there is no disagreement about who Novak's primary source was and that was Armitage, who also leaked the same info to Woodward a month before. (It was also leaked to David Corn by Joe Wilson who essentially outed his wife but thats another story). Deal with that please. The leaker who gave the info to Novak who's story started this whole mess is Armitage. So lets get some outrage going from you about the conspiracy theories as to why he was trying to discredit Wilson. Instead you talk about Rove who at best is a peripheral figure in this whole mess.
The prosecutor certainly could have indicted Rove, but didn't. That's the end of the story right there. The reason is that he also could have indicted Armitage who had far greater impact on this case, but didn't either. Because there was no underlying crime comitted. If you spent 1/4 the time talking about the actual published leak as opposed to your interpretation of a conspiracy that not even the prosecutor proved you'd have more credibility. But as it is it sounds like more left wing talking points.

Armitage was the leaker. THe only story that mattered was Novak's story as he was the one who published it. His source was not out to get Plame and dind't know if she was covert when he shot off his mout. He has shot off his mouth to other reporters about the same info, not because of some grand conspiracy but rather because he has a big mouth and likes to talk shop with reporters.

Tom,
According to Novak, the non partisan gunslinger who spilled the beans was none other than Armitage. He (Novak) then called Rove who said something along the lines of "oh you heard that too". So in this case, it was Novak telling Rove information and then Rove confirming it, not Rove leaking to Novak.

And again, Armitage, the non partisan gun slinger leaked this information to Novak who based his column on that info. He previously leaked the info to Bob Woodward a month earlier, though Woodward didn't write about it.

So there you have your leaker. Now break down for us in detail why Armitage is not in jail right now, or even being prosecuted when Plame was so covert and such a big crime had been comitted. Was Armitage in league with Rove and Cheney and Libby to discredit
Plame, or did he have his own conspiracy going.

We're seriously interested in knowing, if you are so vociferous about getting the guy who outed Valerie Plame why you are so quiet about the leaker not having any charges brought against him? Are you suggesting there were two conspiracies going on to out Valerie Plame working on their own or was Armitage working with Libby and did he leak this info at the behest of the vice presidents office (Armitages leak).

There is disagreementabout whether or not Plame was covert, whether she was covered by the statute, whether people leaking the info knew she was covert, who authorized Joe Wilsons trip etc.

But there is no disagreement about who Novak's primary source was and that was Armitage, who also leaked the same info to Woodward a month before. (It was also leaked to David Corn by Joe Wilson who essentially outed his wife but thats another story). Deal with that please. The leaker who gave the info to Novak who's story started this whole mess is Armitage. So lets get some outrage going from you about the conspiracy theories as to why he was trying to discredit Wilson. Instead you talk about Rove who at best is a peripheral figure in this whole mess.
The prosecutor certainly could have indicted Rove, but didn't. That's the end of the story right there. The reason is that he also could have indicted Armitage who had far greater impact on this case, but didn't either. Because there was no underlying crime comitted. If you spent 1/4 the time talking about the actual published leak as opposed to your interpretation of a conspiracy that not even the prosecutor proved you'd have more credibility. But as it is it sounds like more left wing talking points.

Armitage was the leaker. THe only story that mattered was Novak's story as he was the one who published it. His source was not out to get Plame and dind't know if she was covert when he shot off his mout. He has shot off his mouth to other reporters about the same info, not because of some grand conspiracy but rather because he has a big mouth and likes to talk shop with reporters.

Cliff, why is my reasoning poor?

My one mis-step was in response to Checksum. He asked for proof that Rove comitted a crime, and I gave proof that he was a leaker.

But, supposedly you all think Fitzgerald went on a fishing expedition to get this conviction. My counter is that Libby's lying was an integral obstruction because he lied about the fact that he conveyed the classified identity of a covert agent to reporters.

I admitt to having a reliance on the evidence presented by Fitzgerald, but so what? It's better than any evidence shown to counter my arguments.

Cliff, if my reasoning is so poor, why don't you try enlightening me. Why was Libby's conviction and indictment out of line?

Who cares if Plame was covert or not..at least in regards to Libby. The man was simply asked to tell the truth about what he knew and when he knew it. All he had to do was testify truthfully and he gets to walk away..no jail time..no worries mate. But he didnt do that did he! Instead, a jury (not democrats not liberals) found that he lied. He was convicted by a judge who everyone considers a no nonsense ...toe the line...enforce the law...judge.

The case was so strong that this no nonsense judge thought he had so little chance of overturning the case on appeal that he sends him to jail now.

The law applies to everyone or nobody. Take your pick!

A man of Libby's stature does not lie unless he is trying to protect something or someone more important to him than the truth. That's his call...but he gets to live with the consequences.

Tom Shipley, Let's assume you're correct and Plame was a super secret covert agent and that the disclosure of this info would endanger her life.

Now why would this agent's husband then write an OpEd in the NYT's for Christsake, that calls the President a liar. It's like Wilson paraded his naked wife through a pack of "manimals", then when she's predictably raped, he screams victimhood.

Also, are super secret agents listed in Who's Who? Anyone looking up info on Wilson would read that Plame is his wife.

Neither Wilson nor Plame are THIS stupid. They've been in DC long enough to know that his article would create a firestorm. It's exactly what they wanted to happen. It was a gotcha setup from day one.

Libby has been Nifong'd and when the BDS blinders have been lifted (cracks are now appearing, i.e, Cohen's article), people, maybe even TS, will see this.

Otherwise TS, "Tom, give it up! I'm sure that you're an intelligent man but if you could see how foolish your poor reasoning is, you would be embarrassed!

Posted by: cliff at June 19, 2007 1:07 PM"

Now why would this agent's husband then write an OpEd in the NYT's for Christsake, that calls the President a liar. It's like Wilson paraded his naked wife through a pack of "manimals", then when she's predictably raped, he screams victimhood.

I never understood this reasoning. Should Wilson have expected the Bush White House to out one of its own covert agents in retaliation?

Keep in mind, Soldier's Mom, Armitage, Rove and Libby are "rapists" in your scenario.

But, it's a bad argument, in my opinion. I think Wilson had every right to believe that the government, despite his challenge to what Bush said in the state of the union, would keep his wife's identity secret.

Armitage was the leaker. The only story that mattered was Novak's story as he was the one who published it.

Not according to the law. In course of the investigation, Fitzgerald found that Armitage, Libby and Rove all told reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. The law doesn't specify that the classified information passed to a person not authorized to receive must be published for a law to be broken, just that it was knowingly passed.

Libby told Judith Miller that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA the same day Armitage told Novak. It doesn't matter who was first, the actions of both were possibly a crime. Fitzgerald, according to his statement after the Libby indictment, was not able to determine if the crime of knowingly outing Plame as a covert CIA agent was committed in large part because of Libby's perjury.

In course of the investigation, Fitzgerald found that Armitage, Libby and Rove all told reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. The law doesn't specify that the classified information passed to a person not authorized to receive must be published for a law to be broken, just that it was knowingly passed.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 19, 2007 2:35 PM

Where's the evidence that any of the above persons believed Plame to be covert? All any of them did was tell or confirm to reporters that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA, and that was the answer to the question ‘’Why was this fool Wilson sent to Niger?’’ They never said her name or said she was covert.

The only one to tell the media her name was Wilson in Who’s Who. And Wilson and Plame were the ones that told the media that she was covert, true or not.

The broken record keeps spinning.

TS said " never understood this reasoning. Should Wilson have expected the Bush White House to out one of its own covert agents in retaliation?"

No, Bush, etal, played right into Wilson/Plame's hands. This was the gotcha they were hoping for. The WH along with every reporter in DC started asking "who is this Wilson guy." They knew Plame's name would eventually surface. When it did, they'd make sure it pointed back to the WH (having orgasms over possiblity they'd net Rove).

TS, Wilson called Bush a liar. Anyone who really followed this case, knows that Wilson was the liar, but they've created such a smoke screen, that this little bit if info gets lost.

The point is NO CRIME WAS EVER COMMITTED. This should never have been brought to trial. The passage of time will shed light on what a travesty this witch hunt has been. In the future, being "Plamed" will be synonymous with the Salem witch trials.

Here's a good article on Joe Wilson and the lies he's told. I don't expect that you'll actually read it though. Facts be damned and all.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

Has anyone ever seen Tom Shipley and Joe Wilson in the same place at the same time? I knew before I even opened this comments page that he would be the first to chime in!

If the outing of Mrs. Wilson, was not anything except black politics, why did the 16 words have to be removed from the state of the union address? Wasn't that Joe Wilson's main point. All his other misrepresentations, if you will, don't negate the results of that one revelation. so why did the 16 words have to be removed? Doesn't that warrant some level of scrutiny towards retaliatory behavior on the Vice President's part? If Joe Wilson was such a liar, why did they not stick with their facts as they saw them regarding the 16 words?

"No I haven't. If I you believe I did, show me where."

I'm not exactly sure of the timeline, but if Armitage was first, it doesn't matter. The directive was given by Cheney that Plame was "fair game." After that occurred, we know that Armitage, Rove and Libby all spoke to the press and said that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

ALL THREE LEAKED HER NAME. ALL THREE "OUTED" HER.

...Yes it does. If Armitage named Plame as a CIA agent, not knowing whether she was covert or not, it's not a crime. You have to know she's a covert agent and know that your actions will be exposing her as such.

If Cheney and Rove decided to "out" Plame to hit back at Wilson, knowing she was a covert agent, then they and whoever else knew what they knew (Armitage and Libby) would be guilty of this crime.

If they didn't know, then they are guilty of breaking their confidentiality agreement. Either way, they outed a CIA agent who risked her life for this country in order to track "loose nukes." Either way, it's f*cking shameful what they did. June 5 2007 http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010153.php

Fitzgerald's argument that what Libby said stopped him cold, is obviously phony. He does not accuse Libby of destroying video or documentary evidence, but merely saying something that prevents him from determining what Cheney and Rove knew.

But if asked "Did you conspire with Cheney and Rove to knowly expose a covert CIA agent for political advantage?" Libby could only say one of three things:

A) Confess.
B) Deny.
C) Refuse to answer based on some privilege.

Libby denied.
Libby was convicted of perjury.

Fitzgerald is now free to pursue Cheney and Rove and use Libby's perjured denial as having the substance of a confession. It has as much evidentiary weight as if Libby said they were all guilty.

We strongly suspect this does not happen because when Libby is on trial, Cheney and Rove have no standing before the court, they cannot object to what is presented to the jury, they have no presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt...and in that mileu they cannot win, and the jurors publicly wonder why they weren't indicted too. Put them on trial directly, and then they can't lose, because Fitzgerald can't erase the reasonable doubt of guilt created when different parties testify the CIA offered different opinions as to Plame's covert status at different times. So the situation rests with as much mud flung on Cheney, Rove and Bush as a prosecutor could hurl. It is not at all dependent on what Libby said.

It's SUMMER VACATION for the DC circuit. Even though it's not yet summer.

However, it's like being an intern, on duty, on the 4th of July. Someone's in the building to get Libby's appeals paperwork.

And, before the six weeks are out; you'll know that Libby is not gonna have to go to jail on Walton's time schedule. It's just a ball he tossed in the air. And, to keep it in play Walton decided to say "you go to jail, now."

While Baker Botts is among Libby's attorneys of record. And, the paperwork is efficiently done. Probably, even handed into the the "empty" DC circuit, today.

What's next?

Well, it's not about infinite choices, ya know?

Either the "small group" of judges "forced to work during their summer vacations" ... comes up with a delay. Of sorts. Where Libby stays out of jail while his appeals are in "process."

Heck, the way the robed geniuses work. When they're running out the clock. Is to "hold back" on the paperwork; till January 20, 2008 rolls around. Of course, Fred Thompson's already advertised that Libby's freed on his watch.

Collect all the facts you can.

Among the judges on the DC panel is judge Tatel. Will he hide behind others? There are 15 backsides, up there, sitting in chairs. With the "famous" because he was appointed to the Supremes; Douglas Ginsberg. Sitting there. He lost his Supreme's bid when it was told that he smoked marijuana at Haarvard.

Each kiester filled chair on the DC circuit surely knows that handling Libby's appeal will put his or her name up in lights. Yeah. It could make you famous beyond just the insider's circle.

I always credit the limelight for fancy dancing. Where men and women don't want to be caught out doing miss-steps. Everybody's dream is to be Fred Astaire.

By the way, the Appeals circuit has choices. If they miss-step? Or over-step? Or just find against Walton's judgement? Fitz has gotta move to the Supreme's. Where Walton has already called attention to Morrison. Ah. And, Scalia's EDMUND's opinion. WHich he mischaracterized from the bench.

Exciting times? Only if you like the study of law. On par with watching autopsies, in my book.

While I'm betting good money that LIbby stays free this summer. And, according to Hitchens? So, too, is BIG MONEY being bet by fancy and famous lawyers.

Let alone we still haven't heard from Judith Miller. Why is Robert Bennett telling her to keep her ammunition dry?

Must be a book market ahead; and lots of opportunities.

Where the air will be cleared. And, the media will still hurt.

Well? They lost business to the Internet. Won't see the traffic they once knew, again.

First of all, this...

But if asked "Did you conspire with Cheney and Rove to knowly expose a covert CIA agent for political advantage?" Libby could only say one of three things:

A) Confess.
B) Deny.
C) Refuse to answer based on some privilege.

Libby denied.
Libby was convicted of perjury.

Is a complete mischaracterization of why Libby was convicted of perjury.

He claimed that Tim Russert first told him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Russert testified that he didn't and didn't know who Plame was until days after the conversation when Novak published his piece.

Three members of the White House staff also testified to talking about Plame's status at the CIA with Libby prior to his conversation with Russert.

Libby also admitts to reading a note from Cheney that infers Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but claims he forgot about it prior to his conversation with Russert.

Libby went on trial because he lied. As I've said before, Fitzgerald obviously doesn't have the evidence to show any of these three men knew she was covert and intentionally outed her. But Fitzgerald does site Libby's perjury as a direct hinderence to him seeing the case clearly, and one reason he was not able to bring charges against any of the three men.

As I the portion of the post you've cited shows, I don't know whether they knowingly outed Plame or not. What the facts that came out of the investigation show is that

A) The ball started rolling on this entire affair when Cheney wrote a note on the op-ed wondering if the CIA normally has agents send spouses on fact-finding missions. From there, Armitage, Rove and Libby all disclosed the classified fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

All three men signed a confitentiality agreement, which all three broke, knowingly or unknowingly. It's on them to make sure they don't out the a covert agent. At the very least they accidentally outed one of our own covert actions.

But, the bottom line is that Libby's perjury played a large role in obstructing justice in the case. It hindered Fitzgerald's ability to determine whether a crime was committed. That's why he's going to jail.

Has anyone ever seen Tom Shipley and Joe Wilson in the same place at the same time? I knew before I even opened this comments page that he would be the last to chime in!

Read the comments on the WaPo blog, they're an absolute riot. Keep all possibly spittable beverages out of sight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801366_Comments.html

First off, there are very rich lawyers who are betting Libby does not go to jail this summer.

Walton also managed to anger a whole sub-set of people who weren't involved. But once he went after the 12 "amigos" ... And, I think Mark Levin added himself on as "13" ... Walton gave himself enemies.

And, today. Up at Just One Minute, the Libby Appeals filing came in. Seems lawyers can write "snark" when they want to. And, Walton's arguments "that Libby can go to jail because the issues are close" ... isn't a close call at all.

Oh, you get choices.

The DC circuit left for Summer Vacation. Ahead of time. Summer doesn't even start till t'marra.

On the other hand? You'd be surprised at the star lineup seated on the DC circuit. And, getting this Libby's appeal dropped into your lap ... could be worth cancelling summer plans! (Let alone, if a seat opens up on the Supreme's before the end of June.) You think some of Bush's short listed candidates would want to be seen in public as slackers?

I don't.

I think Walton took a shot at Libby, now; hoping Bush would pardon him. And, that would toss the case away. No need to worry about how the "advanced seating section" is gonna deal blows to Walton's legal reasoning.

ya know? Even Fitz could be in for it? Becaue kept under seal (meaning hidden from view) ... was a CIPA signature where Fitz wrote in his own name. And, that's a NADA. He needed to be supervised. To actually have the powers he exercised.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. So, what do I know what can transpire?

But Walton was trying to get the case toss BY BUSH IN A PARDON. I hope he's not holding his breath.

On the other hand? If the 15 bozo's on the DC circuit really stay "out" till the Fall? Bush can toss off a few names from his "Supreme-O's" candidate short list. See if I care?

But I do believe there's money to be made betting Libby does not go to jail any time soon.

Once he's free ... for this to meander down the streams and dark alley ways of Appeals? A year. To years. I still think Walton is reversed.

And, maybe, if we get very, very lucky, we can add a new dictionary term: FitzFong'ed. To the list of bad things that happen to terrible prosecutors.

Tom DeLay took the "short ticket" from Ronnie Earle, knowing the GOP was in for some rocky times. I do believe DeLay will also be back. And, Ronnie Earle's reputation will join Fitz & Fong. Along with the Ma & Pa Kettle Show.

Even when vaudeville was better than this, it still died.

In a conspiracy proceeding against Cheney or Rove, he could be called on to deny he was part of a conspiracy, he could be asked if he had not described the situation under oath previously, and asked if he had been convicted of perjury for that description of events.

In what way does false statements about Tim Russert obscure an understanding of Dick Cheney's knowledge?

Libby was convicted of making deliberate false statements under oath with the intention of misleading. Fitzgerald goes even further and says those statements are directly relevant to a charge against Cheney--that if Libby had made honest statements he would clearly understand the scope of DIck Cheney's knowledge. Nothing on that list of Libby lies you cite even comes close.

If Libby lied, and Fitzgerald knows he lied, and what about, how can he be confused? No. The barrier to prosecuting anybody for outing Plame is testimony from Fitzgerald's own witnesses that the CIA gave differing accounts of her status. When Novak testifies that the CIA misled him on that point, how can you prove anybody in the Administration knew otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt?

It's Fitzgerald lying when he claims Libby ruined Fitzmas.

Yell, Excuse my intrusions on your delusions, but:

You say: "In what way does false statements about Tim Russert obscure an understanding of Dick Cheney's knowledge?"

Although it's highly probable, based on the pattern that's come out, that Dick Cheney orchestrated a conspiracy to try and discredit an admnistration critic and, in the process, outed a covert CIA operative, without Libby's truthful testimony it cannot be proven in a court of law.

You are even free to disbelieve Cheney's involvement, if you wish, based on "innocent until proven guilty" -- but please don't expect the rest of us to.

"If Libby lied, and Fitzgerald knows he lied"

He proved in a court of law, in front of a jury, that Libby lied. It's not important whether Fitzgerald knows, or we know, or you know, that Libby lied. What matters (or at least, what should matter) to a prosecutor is the rule of law, and what can be proven in court.

"It's Fitzgerald lying when he claims Libby ruined Fitzmas."

Actually, what Fitzgerald said was that he could neither establish a case for Cheney's law-breaking nor could he clear Cheney of such charges because Libby lied. As I said above, the pattern tends to overwhelmingly indicate that Cheney deliberately broke the law, and conspired to break the law, and then participated in the cover-up that followed.

And please -- referring to Cohen as "liberal" may be true in some areas, just as referring to Bush as "liberal" may be true in some senses -- but when he stands up for clemency for an unrepentant perjurer, "wrong-headed" is a more appropriate label.

I see many variations on they did not know she was covert (eg check sum anf jr565). My understanding is that this has always been the asserted defense to the statute. They did not know that she was covert when they gave the information. I dont think the issue( no matter how much the apologists want it to be) is this narrow question. these are people in very responsible positions. why would they ever release such information without first making sure it was not something the CIA would want kept quiet? Why wouldnt Armitage( surely a very partisan bush appointee and signer of The PNAC letter) have first asked the CIA if it was OK to release the information. Why wouldnt Rove have first asked the CIA if this information was OK to release to the press. Are so many high officials that cavalier about information about the cover companies the CIA used. On its face this is reckless. If they were so reckless in this instance how can this possibly be reconciled with statements from the administration about the imperative or secrecy on all war on terror issues. It is the obvious insincerity of the administration on the secrecy of intelligence that is so problematic.

''why would they ever release such information without first making sure it was not something the CIA would want kept quiet?''

Posted by: john henry at June 20, 2007 1:22 PM

For one thing ''they'' (White House) don't work for CIA. It's the other way around. If CIA wanted to keep all this quit, why didn't they tell Wilson to STFU? Why didn't they stop Novak?

A reporter states that Wilson's wife works at CIA and the reply is ''Oh, you heard that too?'' and that is supposed to be ''orchestrated a conspiracy to try and discredit an admnistration critic'' as TS colors it?

And this from the party that thinks it depends on what the meaning of ''is'' is.

CheckSum,

In case you hadn't noticed, neither Wilson nor Novak work for the CIA. The CIA has no way to tell someone who doesn't work for them what to do. Even further, if a reporter calls and asks the CIA to confirm or deny some classified information, they will neither confirm or deny it. They may ask you not to publish something -- but they won't confirm whether it's right.

On the other hand, Cheney had clearance to know the status of Plame, and had legal and moral responsibility to protect the classified information he knew.

Anyone in the government who was asked by a reporter if Plame worked as a covert operative should have answered any questions with "I have no idea" (or other refusal to answer) whether they knew or not. Rove should have lost his security classification permanently for this if for no other reason.

It's clear you have no idea how classified information is handled by the government, so you really shouldn't speak about it.

I am not asking WHAT Fitzgerald thinks is the reason he can't prove anything on Cheney.

I am asking HOW. HOW does Libby telling lies about Russert deny Fitzgerald evidence? The fact he's been convicted of perjury for his innocent explanation is itself evidence for a prosecution--were that the only barrier. If Libby blocked it, say HOW. Don't just repeat that he did it. Say HOW.

"The CIA has no way to tell someone who doesn't work for them what to do. "

Yes they can. They can cite the statute that makes it a crime.

Yell,

The only thing a conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice proves is that a jury was convinced, unanimously, that Libby lied, and tried to cover up his lying.

Consider the following statement: "this statement is a lie."

What does that statement prove? Similarly, knowing that Libby lied cannot prove that Cheney did or did not do anything. Only if Libby told the truth -- that he got the information and direction to shop it around from Cheney -- could Cheney be charged. Which is why Libby couldn't tell the truth, in my opinion.

If the statute you are speaking of is the one making the outing of a covert operative illegal, then that only applies to people with security clearances and who knew that the operative was covert. Novak had no such clearance and hence could not be charged. Wilson, in divulging the contents of an unclassified report, also did not break the law.

Now, the NY Times, that bastion of liberalism, did sit on the information it had uncovered of the warrantless wire-tapping by the NSA for a year, until after the 2004 election, at the request of the Bush administration, until it was about to be scooped.

Wilson worked for CIA. They sent him to Niger, remember. If Wilson and CIA wanted to keep Wilson’s wife’s employment status a secret, they would not have let him publish his lies in the NYT.

On the other hand, Cheney had clearance to know the status of Plame, and had legal and moral responsibility to protect the classified information he knew.

So Cheney is supposed to know the status of every secret agent in CIA? It’s still debatable what the status of Plame was at the time. But besides that, there has never been any evidence that any White House staff believed her status was classified.

Anyone in the government who was asked by a reporter if Plame worked as a covert operative should have answered any questions with "I have no idea" (or other refusal to answer) whether they knew or not. Rove should have lost his security classification permanently for this if for no other reason.

Where the heck did this come from? No one ever asked if Plame was a covert operative. The question asked was “Why was this fool Wilson chosen to go to Niger?” The answer was his wife works at CIA.

I know how classified information is supposed to be handled. If Plame’s status was classified, she broke the law when she revealed it to Wilson, on what was it, their second date. Even if he had the proper level clearance, he didn’t have need-to-know. Oh, and that also applies to the publishers and editors of Vanity Fair.

The only ones who said anything about Plane being covert were her and Wilson.

So Cheney is supposed to know the status of every secret agent in CIA?

No, but if he's telling people to tell the press Wilson's wife works for the CIA, he or someone else has the responsibility to find out if she is or not.

It’s still debatable what the status of Plame was at the time.

Not if you look at the facts of the case. Fitzgerald's case summary cites CIA records that show Plame served overseas under official or NOC 7 times since 2002 and the CIA was actively trying to keep her employment with the company a secret.

The 1982 statute that protects the identity of covert agents defines covert as an agent that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to conceal their serve and who has been stationed or served overseas within the past 5 years.

Plame was a covert agent. Now, you can claim that Fitzgerald was lying in his official court brief without any motive beside the fact that, well, he is a prosecutor.

The thing that's debatable is the sanity of those who still claim Plame was not covert.

Wilson worked for CIA. They sent him to Niger, remember. If Wilson and CIA wanted to keep Wilson’s wife’s employment status a secret, they would not have let him publish his lies in the NYT.

Why not? Wilson's service to the CIA was not a secret. His wife's was. Again, the only reason they would not have let him publish the op-ed is that they knew the administration would out his wife in retaliation. I don't think anyone thought they'd knowingly or be dumb or careless enough to mistakenly do so.

She was outed by the Bush administration, not by Wilson, not by the CIA, not by Who's Who. You take the actions of Armitage, Rove and Libby out of the equation, Plame is not outed. Period.

Checksum,

Check your facts. Wilson did not work for the CIA. He was a retired diplomat -- that would be the State Department, and -- again -- he had retired at the time.

Cheney had a responsibility to investigate before divulging the status of anyone working for the CIA.

You know what Plame divulged to Wilson? He never divulged anything about her status until after she was outed by Novak. Wilson's piece in the NYT did not mention is wife at all.

Check your facts. Wilson did not work for the CIA. He was a retired diplomat -- that would be the State Department, and -- again -- he had retired at the time.

Wilson didn’t work for CIA when they sent him to Niger because he is a retired diplomat? That makes about as much sense as most of your other points. Guess it depends on what the meaning of is is.

You need to argue this real important point with Tom Shipley. Of course, he didn’t say Wilson "worked" for CIA, but he did refer to “Wilson's service to the CIA.” Can a retired diplomat do that? Is service work?

BTW, if all these baseless opinions (that you and TS keep reciting as fact) are true, how come you are not calling for Fitzgerald’s head for incompetence?

No one was charged, indicted, prosecuted, or convicted of illegally "outing" anyone. No one.

Checksum,

So you claim to know that the CIA "employed" Wilson at the time of his NYT piece? And you know this because?

Even if Wilson was employed by the CIA on a temporary basis (which I don't know, and I sincerely doubt that you do) -- the data he based his NYT piece on were not classified. This is fact. You can go check.

Let me be perfectly clear. It's my opinion that Cheney instigated, coordinated, and then covered up a criminal act, the disclosure of a covert agent.

Based on what is known (and I will be the first to admit I don't know what more information Fitzgerald may have), I would be calling for Fitzgerald's resignation if he did bring charges against Cheney. Without Libby's truthful testimony about what Cheney did, there's just no way to bring charges -- and there's also no way to clear Cheney.

Fitzgerald, the CIA, and a lot of learned people think there may have been an underlying crime. Other people don't think so, but, until criminal charges have been brought and proven, appealed, appealed again, and SCOTUS has ruled on it, the issue is not going to be settled. Until then, you cannot state factually, as you did, that "no crime was committed." Nor can I state, as a fact, that a crime was committed -- but I didn't.

Only Libby (or someone else who was privy to what actually led to disclosing Plame's position) can resolve this, and he's chosen to go to jail rather than tell the truth and subject the real facts to litigation to decide the issue.

So you claim to know that the CIA "employed" Wilson at the time of his NYT piece? And you know this because?

I made no such claim. Wilson worked for CIA when they sent him to Niger. And what a stupid point to debate.

Even if Wilson was employed by the CIA on a temporary basis (which I don't know, and I sincerely doubt that you do) -- the data he based his NYT piece on were not classified.

No, they were lies. He did not go to Niger at the request of the VP and return with proof that what the President said in the SOTU speech was untrue.

It’s my opinion that your opinion is wrong. And there is no need to clear Cheney. He wasn’t even charged with anything.

"Without Libby's truthful testimony about what Cheney did, there's just no way to bring charges -- and there's also no way to clear Cheney."

That's not how we prosecute organized crime cases.

And you're making Richard Cohen's point for him. A citizen isn't "cleared" until a bureaucrat decides to spend a million dollars losing a prosecution?

Yell,

Cheney is not guilty, legally, until he's been charged and convicted. Doesn't mean we have any reason to believe he's innocent. As I have said. Repeatedly.

It's up to Libby and Cheney if they're happy with the status quo, which is that a large percentage of the populace of this country strongly suspects that they're guilty as hell.

If you think I agree with Cohen on much of anything, you haven't been reading carefully.

We've reached that pleasant stage of the discussion where you folks are simply making assertions with no evidence and with no regard for the facts. I'd love to continue, but the point of diminishing returns was passed a bit ago.

I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to rehash this again, when President Bush either pardons Libby, the appeals court grants him bail while his appeal is pending, or he goes to prison. See you in about 6-7 weeks.

I seem to have got hold of the fact that you're making allegations you won't try to prove. What more do I really need?

So, without Libby’s testimony, there’s no proof Cheney did anything illegal?

You don’t have Libby’s testimony, but because you don’t like him, you believe him guilty as hell. Seems like an assertions with no evidence and no regard for the facts all right.