Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Questionable Prosecution, Sure Verdict
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


You cannot look at Lewis "Scooter" Libby without seeing Bill Clinton.

Like former President Clinton, Libby apparently thought that he was so clever that he could perjure himself -- by lying to FBI agents and a grand jury probing the leak of CIA agent Valerie Wilson's identity. In their arrogance, both men were steamrolled by a truth any idiot in Washington can tell you. To wit: The cover-up is worse than the crime.

Both Libby's boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Clinton were overzealous in using the White House to discredit critics, which made their detractors more powerful than they would have been if ignored. Had Cheney and Libby not aimed to discredit Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Wilson would not be a hero of the left today. Clinton could have refused to be deposed in the Paula Jones' sexual-harassment case, or even (if you can imagine it) tell the truth, but instead he chose to lie. Enter Kenneth Starr. You know the rest of the story.

After the verdict, juror and former Washington Post reporter Denis Collins referred to Libby as "a very sympathetic guy." Still, jurors apparently believed that Libby concocted a story about learning that Wilson worked for the CIA from "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert, so the jury found him guilty of four out of five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later told reporters, "We cannot tolerate perjury." Fitzgerald is right to argue that the legal system suffers when high-level officials decide they don't have to tell the truth.

But if Fitzgerald believes that a special prosecutor has to go after any official misdeed he sees, you have to wonder why he failed to charge anyone -- not Libby and, most notably, not the initial leaker, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage -- for leaking Wilson's identity. If the answer is, as I suspect, that the leak was a crime only if administration officials knew that Wilson was a covert agent -- and it is not clear she was covert -- then why can't Fitzgerald simply say so?

Such honesty would highlight the utter folly of Libby's claim of Russert as his cover. Libby had every right to tell journalists that Cheney, contrary to news reports, did not send Wilson to check intelligence that suggested Iraq had tried to procure uranium from Niger. Also, if the Bushies did not know Valerie Wilson was covert, they would have had some reason for telling reporters about Wilson's role in the CIA's decision to send her husband to Niger -- although one would hope that seasoned aides would know enough to check around before disclosing any intelligence information.

For the Bush administration, this verdict is bad news. It feeds into the Bush-lied mantra of antiwar critics and leading Democrats, who are unbothered by proof that Joseph Wilson has been no model in truth-telling.

When Joseph Wilson returned from Niger, officials who debriefed him thought that Wilson's information supported the belief that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. As The Washington Post editorialized, "Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth" in saying he debunked the Niger story. The United Kingdom's Butler Commission also found the Niger story to be "well-founded."

Besides, while there were doubts about Iraq's nuclear intentions, the intelligence community and Saddam Hussein's top brass were convinced that Iraq had chemical and-or biological weapons. The experts turned out to be wrong -- but at the time, Bush had strong reason to believe they were right.

Cheney comes across as the albatross of this administration. If Cheney had stuck to simply debunking the he-sent-Wilson story, Wilson would have faded away. And you have to wonder why Cheney, who is supposed to be so smart, didn't sit down with Libby to make sure that Libby gave a true and credible account. Instead, Cheney was doodling about Libby being a fall guy.

Following the trial from my desk, I was hoping that there was enough to Libby's faulty-memory defense to instill jurors with reasonable doubt. I also believe that Fitzgerald should not have gone after Libby when he knew Armitage and Bush strategist Karl Rove were the leakers to Robert Novak, whose column outed Wilson as a CIA agent and spawned this investigation.

But I have to figure that jurors got it right. In the end, there is no denying that Scooter Libby did this to himself. And there's no defending any official who willfully lied under oath.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
two points
There would seem to be good reason why Cheney would not want to pin his defense on the fact that he did not send Wilson to Niger. Cheney asked the CIA about information they had linking Hussein to yellowcake in Niger. They did not have the information, and so sent Wilson to find out whether the information was accurate. In doing so they assumed that Cheney's request was based on a desire to find out the truth. Clearly that was not an accurate assumption. Cheney had a claim he wanted to push. If he could cite the CIA, better, if not the last thing he wanted to hear was that the information he was pushing was false.

So the Cheney defense that he didn't send Wilson to Niger depends on the fact that he didn't really care whether the rationales he was using for the war were true or not. That is not exactly a great defense. It is not hard to see why Cheney would rather push the nepotism charge however ludicrous it was under the circumstances.

The second point concerns the supposed mystery as to why Fitzgerald went after Libby and not Armitage. Like a good prosecutor he clearly started with the people with least involvement to get background to deal with the people with the most involvement. By the time he got to the leakers (Libby, Rove, Armitage, and Fleisher) he had a good sense of who had leaded what to whom. Armitage and Fleisher came in and told the truth. Rove and Libby did not. Rove was able to convince Fitzgerald that there was at least a chance that his false claims were made in good faith. Libby did not. So Libby was prosecuted. A more zealous prosecutor probably would have gone after Rove as well, although he might have lost, he might have won. There does not appear to have been any case against the other two.

lon
good rational synopsis.

i thought the jury was very impressive.They built a timeline and found libby to simply not be credible.

we will never know (unless libby writes a book) why he lied, but i suspect it was to protect cheney and rove.

thanks
I doubt it was to protect Libby. The opening statements suggest that Libby was prepared to hang Rove out to dry if it could help his case. That only changed when it became clear that the evidence against him was too strong.

But protecting Cheney was part of it. The main thing was probably that the first lie was told at a time that it appeared things would just blow over. That is to say he probably did not think this was going to be a major issue, and so saw no reason not to protect what his office had been up to. By the time he learned otherwise, he was already under oath.

One often hears the claim that the coverup is worse than the crime. But that is because we only learn about the coverups in the cases in which they go bad. For most of the participants the coverup is successful. In fact Bush benefited from this coverup since it froze the issue until after the election. Except for Libby, and he will probably appeal until late next year and then get a pardon, the coverup has been better than no coverup.

I don't understand
I'm confused. So was there a crime committed in regard to the leak itself?

thats the problem according
to fitzgerald he could not determine if there was a crime because libby was lying and obstruction justice by doing so.

now cheney has claimed he had the right to de-classify stuff but that has never been tested in court.
i think he de-classified this stuff after the initial attempt to shut wilson up but we will never know cause libby lied.

Crime
As said, there seems to be some doubt that a crime was even committed. If, as has been said, Plame (Sp) had not been a covert agent for more than 5 years before she was named, then the law used was not appliable. That is the first thing that should have been decided. If it applied then investigate, if not then stop the investigation. If it applied them he was guilty of perjury, if it didn't then he should have never been questioned and he was tried for something that was not justified in even asking about.

If it applied then everyone including the leaker should have been charged. If not then no one should have and don't say they had to find out who the leaker was no matter what. If it didn't apply then it made no difference who the leaker was. They had done nothing illegal.

Bush
should pardon him now and do it in a manner that absolves him of a felony conviction. This is a travesty of justice.

I suppose next the "rapists" from Durham will be convicted too if they have the same jury.

religiouslib, I disagree
The determination of the non-crime came about when two other people admitted they were the source of the information on Plame. Let's not forget that she was not a covert agent but rather a CIA desk jockey at the time, so telling anyone about her doesn't seem to be an issue any more. Since Fitzgerald didn't present any evidence to the contrary, it looks like Libby was convicted for lying about something that was, for all practical purposes, common knowledge. I don't know which is stupider, fabricating a story to cover up a non-crime, assuming an educated man would fabricate a story to cover up a non-crime just because he didn't have a clear recollection about someone that only recently achieved cult-like status, or wasting taxpayer dollars for immemorable actions in a non-crime. Is it any wonder that politicians, lawyers and journalists share waning popularity with the masses?

ko-plame was covert
both the cia and fitzgerald said she was covert.

if you have credible information from a source better than her employer and the man who read 50000 pages of classified material investigating this crime i sure would like to see it.

you also admit libby fabricate. fitzgerald and the jury were never able to find out WHY libby lied hence the obstruction of justice charge.

why did he lie?

vic
i guess conservatives don't believe in the rule of law anymore and lying to the fbi and a grand jury is just fine with you.

and don't start with that bad memory stuff because he talked to 9 people about it.

religiouslib
A little light reading for you. Be sure to follow the links contained in this piece, and actually read them.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011038.php

ReligiousLib
I've seen two sources with differing dates for when Valerie Plame was pulled out of the field--1996 and 1997. Even if it was 1997, "outing" her in 2003 would have been outside the five-year window during which revealing her "covert" identity would have constituted a crime.

Incidentally, she was pulled out of the field because CIA believed that both the Russians and the Cubans knew who she was.

The author of the act under which Fitzgerald was trying to indict members of the administration has stated publicly that revealing Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was not a crime under the law she wrote. You see, the revelation has to happen within five years of the agent's last undercover assignment and has to be done with intent to jeopardize intelligence operations.

I'm not sure I understand why you, Debra Saunders and Patrick Fitzgerald are having such a hard time figuring this out. She hadn't been undercover for five years or less, and there was clearly no intent to jeopardize intelligence operations.

But the upshot is that Libby was convicted for lying during an investigation into something that could never have been a crime in the first place. If he did lie (and I'm still not 100% convinced that he did), he still should never have been under investigation in the first place.

mysteries
It is an interesting question why Libby would have lied if there was nothing to lie about. Another is why the people with knowledge of Plame's status all act as if she qualified as covert when the people who do not have direct knowledge of her status insist she does not. In fact it is a big puzzle why everyone directly involved in the case is acting in just about the most incomprehensible ways possible given the facts established on Townhall.

Of course all of those mysteries disappear if one simply makes the assumption that the people directly involved in the case understand the facts better than the political activists with no direct knowledge. Then the only mystery in an otherwise quite explicable story is whether Libby can stretch out the appeals long enough for Bush to not have to pardon him until after the 2008 elections.

cg
i ask again for a more credible source than her employers (who asked for the investigation) and a federal prosecutor who spent 3 years and had access to 50000 pages of classified material.

yours are not sources but supposition based on conversations.
how do you know wilson was telling the truth. would you admit your wife was undercover if she really was.

come on this is flimsy stuff here.
even the wording is doubtful, "it appears" and "logically speaking"
are not proof but conclusions drawn from those who had no direct knowledge of whether wilsons statements were accurate.

The whole thing
sounds like a poorly written soap opera. And if Bush pardons anyone it should be the two Boarder Patrol agents!



Unspining Media Matters

you guys don't get it
first you throw out all this conjecture by biased conservative media and expect people to accept it.
second, not one of the articles linked has one piece of proof or documentation that unequivocally refutes the charges against libby.

libby lied that is a LEGALLY PROVEN FACT.
now you can throw all your supposition against the wall and hope it sticks but america has the best justice system in the history of the world and to deny that is fruitless.

an objective jury which heard both sides concluded libby was a proven liar.

now why did he lie?

he is a lawyer and knew the consequences.
he certainly did not do it to just save himself because he is smart enough to use the 5th amendment if that was the problem.

no, he must have thought that someone had done something illegal. now he as one of the right wing media pointed out he could have thought "wrongly" that a crime had been committed but this guy was a lawyer. certainly he thought this through thoroughly and decided he, for some reason, could not tell the truth.

again, don't talk to me about bad memory because the jury heard that argument and legally said it was a lie.

Why send Wilson?
The part I don't understand yet is if Cheney indeed wanted to confirm what he believed about the yellow cake and Niger and Iraq, or if he was making it up so we could go to war as many on the left seem to think, why send Wilson, who's political leanings were well known. Why chance getting back information he didn't want to hear when he could just send some CIA yes man if he didn't care what the truth was. In other words, if I were lieing us into a made up war and I wanted to get information justifying my made up war, I wouldn't send someone who might bring back the non supporting information. That's why I think the entire get even with Wilson thing is a crock. How does mentioning his wife being in the CIA discredit him.....If these folks in the White House are so evil I would think they could do better than that if they wanted to get back at him.

Good Lord, religiouslib . . .
If anyone doesn't get it, it's you and your left-wing ilk that so desperately need to have your venomous hatred of all things right-of-center replenished on an hourly basis.

You claim Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent because her former employer (i.e., the CIA) and Patrick Fitzgerald said she was. In fact, the CIA never said any such thing, and didn't officially comment on her agent status one way or another, mainly because they couldn't.

As far as Fitzgerald is concerned, yes, he claimed several times during the trial that VPW was "covert" and "classified," but neither of these highly prejudicial characterizations were EVER proven in the court -- something I would imagine any half-decent prosecutor with access to 500,000 related documents would have done, if he could have. Proving her covert status, which was at issue even before the investigation began, was central to the entire investigation, so why didn't he? Hmmm . . . maybe because he couldn't, perhaps . . ? Pretty basic logic, for those who are interested in it.

And even if Plame’s job were "classified," as Fitzgerald reiterated in his press conference after conviction, there is no criminal violation in publishing her name -- something one of the authors of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), Victoria Toensing, made quite clear.

For the IIPA to have been violated in this case, VPW would have had have taken part in long-term covert missions (i.e., more than a weekend trip) outside the United States at some point during the immediately preceding five years before the oft-mentioned Bob Novak column appeared in the summer of 2003. Additionally, the act states that the person identifying the agent must do so in a deliberate and malicious manner, so as to bring harm to the agent or to the mission.

If either of these pre-requisites were met, no one -- including Fitzgerald -- seemed to notice, since no one was ever charged with this at any point in the entire three-year investigation.

Clearly, Richard Armitage -- a liberal dove and the source of the now-famous leak, who Fitzgerald knew about a couple weeks into the probe -- was not deliberately trying to bring harm to VPW, nor any covert operations she may have been part of. He confirmed her identity to a reporter during an interview, and didn't know he was doing so at the time.

Bottom line: If someone had violated the IIPA by outing a covert agent, someone surely would have been indicted for it. But nobody was.

So either VPW wasn't a covert agent, or Armitage didn't deliberately "out" her. Either way, the IIPA was not violated, and the three-year investigation into an alleged national security matter was reduced to nothing more than a partisan pissing match whose only conviction was based on whether someone was fully honest, or had full recall of all events, with reporters.

I don't necessarily dispute Libby's guilt, or at least his being in trouble. I, unlike most Democrats (see: Clinton years), think perjury is a very serious matter, and the hammer should come down hard and fast in such instances. But as noted in another column on this site, Scooter Libby faces jail time for trying to cover up the fact that he did not commit a crime.

And given the reason for the launching of this investigation in the first place, that's pretty damn weak.

Bobbyrx
That's one of the underlying issues that is constantly missed here: Cheney didn't send Joe Wilson anywhere. The CIA did, at the request of his wife. Cheney didn't even know he was going until a report was plopped on his desk.

Joe Wilson even said himself that he was not sent anywhere by the vice president's office.

I don't want to get in the habit of quoting John Gibson, but here is a transacript that sums it up nicely, from Tuesday night.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257162,00.html


stiritgood
"In fact, the CIA never said any such thing, and didn't officially comment on her agent status one way or another, mainly because they couldn't."

oh they commented on it alright, they sent a referral to the justice department saying an agent had been outed. also, by admitting they can't say much more than that because of national security issues works against you not for you.

"As far as Fitzgerald is concerned, yes, he claimed several times during the trial that VPW was "covert" and "classified," but neither of these highly prejudicial characterizations were EVER proven in the court -- something I would imagine any half-decent prosecutor with access to 500,000 related documents would have done, if he could have. Proving her covert status, which was at issue even before the investigation began, was central to the entire investigation, so why didn't he? Hmmm . . . maybe because he couldn't, perhaps . . ? Pretty basic logic, for those who are interested in it."


highly prejudicial characterization is your opinion not fact. fitzgerald had direct knowledge of the facts and your sources did not.


so plames covert status was proved to the person who was investigating the crime but because of libby's now proven lies, he could not go any further into the investigation.

we have the best justice system in the history of the world and to undermine it because of your political philosphy is shameful.

Religiouslib
Legally proven facts don't mean diddly. OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole. That's a legally proven fact (Criminal trial). OJ did, however, kill them. That's a legally proven fact (Civil trial).

I bet you think Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich were responsible for millions of deaths, right? But guess what, they were never convicted. Guess that means that they've been horribly maligned all these years. Heck, no wonder two out of the three committed suicide. After being slandered that badly, who wouldn't.

Also, Plame has to have been the least-covert agent in the history of espionage. The Russians and Cubans identified her as CIA years ago. There was a pretty detailed discussion of the matter when the whole mess started - including quotes from the foreign agencies that tagged her.

religiouslib
"oh they commented on it alright, they sent a referral to the justice department saying an agent had been outed."

Sigh . . . no, religiouslib, they most certainly DID NOT comment on it. Doing so would have violated the very laws were discussing here, and they still haven't commented on it.

What the CIA did was contact the Justice Department (who later launced the investigation) inquiring as to whether laws had been broken because one of their "classified" operatives was identified in Bob Novak's column by a confidential source (Richard Armitage). That is not synonymous with your contantion that "the cia . . . said she was covert."

FYI, there is a difference between "classified" and "covert." One is protected by the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, as well as the Espionage Act. The other is not.

But since you believe the CIA at some point came out and said "Valerie Plame Wilson was covert," please enlighten me with some evidence. Kindly provide a link, any link, to a news story that contains any official CIA verification or denial of VPW's agent status, covert or otherwise. (And spare me links to blogs on Daily Kos or some other similar liberal crap factory; I'm talking about a real news story in which the CIA confirmed her alleged covert status. Just one.)

"highly prejudicial characterization is your opinion not fact."

Yep, that's my opinion. And? Is that not allowed? Shall I cut-and-paste some examples of your "opinion not fact?" Maybe I'll start with "he (Libby) must have thought that someone had done something illegal . . . "

"fitzgerald had direct knowledge of the facts and your sources did not."

Very true. Which makes it even more puzzling why he never charged anyone during the three-year investigation with outing a covert agent and violating the Intellinge Identity Protection Act or the Espionage Act -- the very reason the entire investigation was launched.

Seems to me that if VPW was indeed covert, and someone outed her, that would be brought up at some point. But it wasn't. How come?

"we have the best justice system in the history of the world and to undermine it because of your political philosophy is shameful."

I agree with you that our justice system is top-notch, although I do wonder what Ron Goldman and the rest of Nicole Simpson's family would say to you right now. But how exactly are my statement of facts and corrections of your errors undermining our justice system, exactly? I doubt very much that what is written here will have any affect on American jurisprudence. ;-)

stirit good
to most people the fact that the cia initiated a referral because one of their agents was outed in publlic means they are commenting.

again fitzgerald has more facts than anyone else in this country and he says plame was covert.

this is what i mean about undermining the judicial system. you discount an unbiased (no credible person has questioned his integrity) federal prosecutor and blithely say he was highly prejudiced.

he never charged anyone because libby lied. he said that the day he charged libby and he said it the last day of the trial.

oh well, its your story and your sticking to it despite the fact that logic and rational thought says you are basing your decision solely on feelings and not facts.

lib
"to most people the fact that the cia initiated a referral because one of their agents was outed in publlic means they are commenting."

I never said they didn't comment at all. I said the CIA didn't comment on Valerie Plame Wilson's agent status. They have never confirmed nor denied whether she was covert, classified or other. There is a difference, and you were the one who claimed the CIA said she was covert. They didn't.

"you discount an unbiased . . . federal prosecutor and blithely say he was highly prejudiced."

I never said Patrick Fitzgerald was "highly prejudiced." I said some of his remarks were. Using words like "covert" and "classified" to describe someone without offering any proof of either official classification, especially during the closing arguments when the rebuttal time had passed, is prejudicial. And judging from the statements made by some legal experts on the matter throughout the past 36 hours, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

"he never charged anyone because libby lied"

How did Libby's "lies" prevent Fitzgerald from going forward and charging someone with outing a covert agent? Libby wasn't the source of the leak in the first place, so what he said on the matter is a side issue.

If Valerie Plame Wilson was covert at the time of Bob Novak's column, then disclosing her identity may have violated the IIPA and amounted to a serious crime. We now know -- and Fitzgerald knew three weeks into the investigation -- that the source of the leak was Richard Armitage (much to the displeasure of liberals everywhere, who were praying that it was Dick Cheney, Karl Rove or Scooter Libby). So if VPW was actually covert, why wasn't Dickie indicted? No one knows, but one possible explanation is that -- insert drumroll here -- VPW wasn't actually covert (and evidence from many sources suggest she wasn't), and therefore wasn't protected under the legal umbrella of the IIPA.

If VPW was covert and outed, why wasn't anyone charged? It's a pretty simple question, and hopefully one that Patrick Fitzgerald will one day answer.

Washngton Post editorial

stir
please name any legal expert who says libby should not have been charged with perjury.

saying that his statements were prejudicial but he wasn't is slick but makes no sense.

armatage was the first but not the only member of this administration to leak her name.
rove just did not lie about it.

again you don't seem to get it. fitzgerald seems (this is my own opinion)to have been on the trail of cheney but because of libby's lies and obstruction of justice he could not get to the truth.

lib
Uhhh, I never said any legal experts claimed Libby shouldn't have been charged with perjury, lib. Where did that come from? I really wish you'd stop trying to put words in my mouth.

What I said was that argumentative comments from Patrick Fitzgerald (different person than Libby, mind you) about VPW having "covert" and "classified" status at the CIA at the time her name was made public were highly prejudicial. Why were they prejudicial? Because that status was never proven in court, and therefore, was debatable. But he chose to use those words during closing statements, when the defense couldn't come back and call BS.

Others in the legal profession -- judges and lawyers -- have been talking and writing about it all day long. In fact, here is one legal expert -- a former federal prosecutor who just so happens to be the main author of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982 -- who uses the same words (no, I didn't lift it from her . . . lol).

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODM4MDMxMTgzNzU1YTVkZTliZDUyZmVjN2JmMWI4ODM=

I'm not sure why you can't comprehend the distinction between calling someone's comments prejudicial and claiming someone is a generally prejudiced person. It seems pretty reasonable to me. Kind of like comparing the noises someone makes to those of a dog vs. claiming he actually is a dog. But I digress.

And once again, you claim poor little Patty Fitz couldn't nail someone -- now it's Dick Cheney, for God's sake -- because mean ol' Scooter lied and hurt his feelings. Of course, that doesn't explain why Fitzgerald didn't just go ahead and indict Cheney and nail him anyway, since he personally interviewed him about this matter clear back in 2004.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/politics/main620810.shtml

But again, since Libby was not the source of the leak, I still don't understand your contention that Fitz couldn't charge anyone with outing an alleged covert spook. The person who disclosed her identity was Richard Armitage. What does Libby's testimony have to do with nailing him? If Fitz wanted to charge him with a crime, he should have, and would have. But he didn't, probably because VPW didn't have covert status at the time of the outing, and therefore, no crime had been committed.

Hmmm . . .
Speaking of Victoria Toensing, here's another good read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705.html

stir
oh come on

this is ridiculous

we know libby and rove leaked, they have admitted it.
the only thing that was established was that armatage was first.

why do you think the reporters miller and cooper went to jail because rove leaked to miller and libby to cooper.

i have never seen such denial of facts in my life.

you guys are simply willing to condone lawbreaking rather than admit the truth.

you supported impeaching clinton over perjury but its different when it is a republican.

hypocrisy thy name is repubulican

lol @ religious lib
Dude, you've been getting your a$$ handed to you all night and you don't seem to be aware of it. lmao

You make statements, stiritgood refutes them and asks you something, then you change direction and start in on something completely different. Now it's evolved to "Libby and Rove leaked, but armitage did it first?" hahah Of course, neither were charged with anything (I know, I know, because Libby lied about what he told this or that journalist, and when, and therefore fitzpatrick couldn't get to the truth with anyone else, right?). Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Valerie Plame was not a covert agent at the CIA, and anyone with even babboon intelligence can figure that out. If she was and her identity was disclosed, someone would have been charged. No one ever was. That speaks volumes.

And I haven't seen anyone condoning anything, least of all stir. In fact, if you bothered to read what he wrote earlier, you'd see that. Purjury is bad, and he said so. I do too. But you libs had something completely different to say about it 9 years ago. lol

Now have a drink and go to bed before stiritgood pummels you some more.

Verdict is a non-surprise
Please. A D.C. jury made up of folks who - by a percentage of roughly 90% - 10% vote Demoncrat - and you actually expect it to be looking at the alleged evidence instead of at the fact that Libby was part of Bush's White House?

Proof? The comments by the jurors themselves, as in Libby "was a fall guy for the White House"; as in one of the jurors is a golfing buddy of Tim Russert - a key prosecution witness.

And you Demoncrat libs - where is the "Sandy Burglar" outrage? He never HAS taken the lie detector test that he agreed to take!

Let's make the pardon an IMMEDIATE three-fer: Libby, Ramos and Compean.

Religious Lib
You have said many things and got most of them wrong. You, I think, said that the CIA send over a referral to Justice to see if any law had been broken. This is common CYA in the government. If Justice says the law was broken then CIA can say we did our part. If Justice says no law was broken then CIA can say we did our part, talk to Justice.

Now for the law to have been broken, certain things have to be true. The main thing being:
1. Was Plame a covert agent and/or was she covered by the law?

Here are the facts:
Was Plame ever a covert agent for the CIA? YES

Was she a covert agent at the time her name was published? NO

Had she been a covert agent within the past five years before her name was published? NO

Was she covered by this law? NO

Since the law was not appliable in this case, why did the investigation continue?

Under what law was it being conducted and for what reason?

If the law had not been broken, then why was Libby or for that matter any one questioned?

If the law had been briken, then why was Libby the only one charged?

Did Justice change the reason for the investigation to find out who leaked the name no matter if the law had been broken or not and if so why was Libby the only one charged. At a minimum the first leaker should also have been charged.

If Justice did not change the requirement and the law wasn't broken then under what authority was the investigation continued?

Awaiting your answer.




Plame NOT Covert; Saunders Wrong
Valerie Plame was NOT "covert" within the meaning of the Agent Identities Protection Act. The posts here saying she was covert and cross-referencing various articles atempting to say so are just wrong. To be "covert," you need, among other things, to have a foreign posting within the last five years and to have the C.I.A. take affirmative steps to conceal the identity. Plame had been a Washington D.C. desk bound analyst for six or seven years, and her identity was not given the special concealment required. This happens to be the opinion of Victoria Toensing, the lawyer who was a principal draftsperson for the sponsorship of Senator Barry Goldwater, who has been saying this for some time. Yes, the C.I.A. made the porosecution request, but the bureaucratic games and miscues involved in that request and its mishandling do not change the bottom line legal point: Plame was NOT "cover" within the meaning of the Agent Identites Protection Act.

Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with violating the Agent Identities Protection Act -- particularly one Richard Armitage, the one who revealed Plame to Bob Novak -- because Fitzgerald couldn't charge anyone without directly confronting the problem that he would have to prove that Plame was covert when she wasn't. The advantage of the perjury and obstruction of justice charges for Fitzgerald was that he could intimate that Plame was coovert without having to prove it. My view is that Fitzgerald played a sleazy game with respect to the issue of what was the non-covert status of Plame. It was his motion the trial judge granted to keep out of the jury's consideration the question of Plame's status, yet in his closing talked about how revealing Plame's identity endangered her, as if that had anything to do with the narrow charges against Libby. Of course, one might ask if Plame was not covert and there was no violation of the Agent Identities Protection Act, what motive di Libby have to lie to the grand jury about what he said to whom when? The aswer is that there was no such motive.

Which leads me to the very poor column by Saunders. Saunders has not done her homework. Of course, we cannot tolerate perjury. But this perjury case was a poor one, based on differences in recollections between Libby and a few journalists as to what was said in UNDOCUMENTED conversations. Such differences in recollection are standard in any case; indeed, the failures of memory on the part of prosecution witnesses demonstrated the point, which I have known as a litigator for thirty years. It always is the case that there are differences of recollection as to undocumented conversations.

Fitzgerald's case succeeded for wrong reasons, among them the following. First, Fitzgerald's case depended on keeping away from the jury the non-covert status of Plame while painting an alternative universe of painting a Bush Administration striking at war critic Wilson, instead of what was the case -- an Adminstration trying to respond to Wilson who, according to the Senate Intelliegnce Committee, lied in his NY Times op-ed column about the facts he did not do a written report of any kind, much less one that had denied Brit intelligence as to Saddam's intentions in Africa, and that he was not sent on his trip to Africa by the Vice President (he was sent by his wife). Second, Fitzgerald sought and got a Washington D.C. jury with people susceptible to accepting that his alternative universe, with a barbecue buddy of prosecution witness Tim Russert and a former employee of prosecution witness Bob Woodward. A red state America jury in the heartland would not have returned this verdict. Third, Libby's defense team made serious mistakes. One mistake was that the defense team did not have Libby testify. You need to have had Libby speak to the jury directly so that they conclude and want to conclude that if Libby misremembered any conversation, it was not a matter of intentionally lying. Another mistake was that the defense team bought into the alternative universe of Fitzgerald, calling Libby the "fall guy," instead of taking on Fitzgerald's case directly. This latter point was made well yesterday by the Editors of the Wall Street Journal in their column on the Libby verdict.

4 statements and a question
Statement #1 Wilson is not a liar.

Wilson came back a reported that, while Iraq might have been seeking uranium from Niger, it was highly doubtful that a transaction ever could've taken place.

The White House told the American people half of the story, the half that made the nuclear threat sound way worse than it really was.

Joe Wilson wrote his op-ed to explain that the White House was only telling half of the truth.

And this silly charge that Wilson lied when he said that Cheney sent him on the trip is nonsense. In his initial meeting Wilson was told that the office of the VP wanted further clarification on the uranium from Niger deal. So where is the lie, exactly?

Statement #2 No one knows Plame's status.

There are a lot of people who claim to know this one way or the other. But the fact is, it is still unknown. At the is point in time, to say that she was covert is a lie. And to say that she wasn't is a lie.

Statement #3 There's a reason why no underlying crime was prosecuted.

The reason no one was prosecuted for an underlying crime is that Sooter Libby was obstructing justice. Had he told the truth, it's very likely that Cheney would've have been indicted for an underlying crime.

Statement #4 Armitage was not THE leaker.

You Republicans love to say that Armitage was THE leaker. As if that means that no one else leaked and the case should've been dropped. Libby leaked too you idiots! So did Rove and Fleischer. And Armitage wasn't prosecuted because he came forward and told Fitzgerald everything. He never lied to a Grand Jury like Libby did.

The Big Question.

Now that we can all agree that Libby lied, the big question is "Why?"

Obviously he lied because he didn't want the truth to come out.

What is the truth? The truth is probably that Cheney told him about Plame and to spread her name to reporters in order to attack a war critic. Naturally Libby can't say that, so he made up a whopper.

It's amazing to me to listen to right wing shock jocks and other propagandists try to spin this story any which way they can. You people seem to be utterly incapable of accepting reality here. Don't you people have any integrity at all?

Phylo out

Scooter
You are still my favorite SF Chronicle Columnist and the talk of Bowdon, GA. The Libby thing has me puzzled. It looks like from the thing jurors are saying that the jury was highly biased and were unhappy that they could not convict someone higher up. That said, it also looks like the jury pool was so packed with left wing zealots that the defense did the best they could with the challenges they had. It was like the jury that cleared O.J. Also the Libby defense did not have a powerful media to castigate Fitzgerald as Clinton did in his defense against Ken Starr. That is a fact overlooked when contrasting the cases. I thought the whole thing was a fall back position when Fitzgerald could not nail Carl Rove or Dick Chaney. He had to justify his efforts so he used a little smoke and mirrors to get Libby for lying about something that did not matter. He lied, probably did, and he was caught. If you have ever been in a position like that you are never sure what to do. I don't think he considered Fitzgerald as a partisan agent of the Democrat Party or he would have been more guarded in what he said. Hiliary used I don't remember so much that it became a joke on TV and radio talk shows. I don't remember was not allowed in Libby's case, as far as I know. I'm still concerned about those subpoeaed billing records found in Hiliary's office in the White House. Maybe if Libby could afford lawyers as good as the Clinton's he could have walked, but not with that jury.

Phylo Out
Your 9:15 AM post has the facts wrong in a way that indicactes you are spinning deceitfully. Let's get osme things staraight.

1. Plame arranged for Wilson to go on the trip to Africa before the Vice President evinced his interest, and the implication from Wislon's op-ed was that Cheney had sent Wilson. Cheney had not sent Wilson and would not. Wilson is known around Washington D.C. as a hard core left wing Democrat. Wilson's op-ed in th NY Times stated that he had given a report, ignored by Bush, that denied Saddam had been trying to by yellow cake uranium in Niger. But Wilson had not given a written report; he had been only given oral comments ina de-briefing in which he said that Saddam was up to something in Niger. The only thing of interest to Saddam in Niger was yellow cake uranium. The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Wilson lied. The liberal Washington Post in an editorial yesterday reminded everyone that Wilson was a liar. On topof it all, to suggst that Wilson was in a position to judge Saddmam's nuclear plans and capabilitties is a hoot. Wislon was in no positin to do that. The NY Times article complaining late last year about the publication on the internet of translated Saddam government documents because one could build a nuclear device from them, as Saddam was closer to being nuclear than we thought, should have given everyone pause.

2. Yes, we do know Plame's status under the Agent Identiites Protection Act. She was not covert. It is a matter of the application of a statute which we can all read, and I have. Victoria Toensing's opinion has been that Plame was not covert, and that it is not even a close question. It is not a matter of some subjective determination of the C.I.A.. Also, had Plame truly covert, then the C.I.A. should have nixed Wilson's op-ed piece as it coud have compromised Wislon in the ordinary course. Somebody might ask who sent Wilson. Novak did and was told by Armitage, a State Department critic of the Iraq War. This business of pretending that we don't know Plame's status is part of a conscious effort on the left to treat Plame as protected under the law when in fact she was not.

3. It is a stupid crock of nonsense to say that Libby's supposed perjury abut what convesations he had with journalists prevented any prosecutions under the Agent Identities Protection Acr. Nothing prevented Fitzgerald from doing anything because of what Libby said to the grand jury. In fact, Fitzgerald leared who the so-called "leaker" was -- Armitage. Libby was not the so-called "leaker."

4. Armitage was the so-called "leaker." That is who Bob Novak fingered, adn Bob Novak is the one who knows. No one disputes this. Armitage doesn't.

5. We really don't know that Libby lied, despite what a Washington D.C. jury with the mentality of the Senate Semocrat caucas returnd ina verdict. We know that his recollection of convesations with a few journalists differed from those journalists. If you take the cae out of Fitzgerald's and the left's alternative universe, then there was no reason to lie. In the real universe, there was not a reason to lie.

6. The truth? Putting aside the truth that you, Phylo, don't ha\ve a clue, the truth is that the Administration had every right to rebut its critics and specifically Wilson, who written an op-ed with false statements in it. The matter of who was Wislon's wife came up in the nornal course because Bob Novak asked the question: who sent Wilson? Wilson had intimated it was Cheney, but it clearly was not. The answer that Bob Novak got, from Armitage, was Plame. Trying to put Plame in the role of victim is nonsense.


Phil Byler on Phylo...
Thanks, I had written essentially the same thing and it vanished in transmission. I'm glad that someone else had gotten it all in here.

phil byler
here is your problem.

you arrogantly state your facts like you actually know the truth.

the only people who know if plame was covert are the cia and fitzgerald.

if you have any documentation that she was not covert or hadn't left the country in five years produce it. it must be a credible source who has direct knowledge of her assignments though,i don't want conjecture and supposition.

another thing phil if you would quit getting information solely from biased conservative media you may be better informed.

there were three leakers.

why did miller and cooper go to jail?
because libby leaked plames name to cooper and rove leaked plames name to miller.armatage leaked to novak

how soon conservatives forget pesky little facts in their re-writing of history.

finally the question no conservative seems to be able to answer is why libby lied.
can you answer that question?

Religiouslib
If you would use the brain that you like to think you have you could figure out the following.
Was Plame covert, you ask for proof. The proof is: If you are assigned to HQ CIA, working at the building and not hiding where you are each day you are working. You are not covert. Your job might be classified but you are not covert.

Another point, if she was covert before the leak, then why wasn't that proved before or during the trial? Why did all parties agree that Libby hadn't violated the IIPA law?

Why did the reporters go to jail? People had told them certain things. They didn't want to say who it was or what they said. They chose to go to jail. It has happened many times before and I am sure it will happen again.

As of this time, according to a jury, that because of a reporter and friend of one of the people involved being on it is suspect, Libby is guilty of perjury. Lets wait and see what the final outcome is. That could range from everything staying the same to everything being reversed.

Coverup
It is easy for the coverup to be worse than the crime when there was no crime!

rick
you only give me conjecture and supposition but no facts.
the fact is the cia and fitzgerald said she was covert.

of course some conservatives can't accept facts so they deny them. fine, but that doesn't change the fact.

how do you now what she was assigned to do. where do you get that information from? the biased conservative media. not from anyone with direct knowledge of the facts.

the parties didn't agree libby had violated the act, because of his lies that could not be established. that is why it couldn't be dealt with.

when a person lies to a grand jury you can't find out the truth or the facts.

Religiouslib
If Miller never told what she was told or by whom, how do YOU know what she was told? Are you psychic?

I believe you are the one selling suppositions as fact, though you accuse everyone else of that.

religiouslib
I think it is time for you to tell us your real identity, as you posture as someone with "direct knowledge of the facts". So, are you Fitzgerald or Libby?

andrews
you have been listening to biased conservative media to much.

miller not only held a news conference where she confirmed what i have said but wrote an article in the nytimes

sheesh please be more informed before you start trying to insult people.

second, i ask a simple question.

the cia and fitzgerald both said plame was covert and my question is what is your source that tells you different and does that source have direct knowledge of her status.

Religiouslib
You have failed to provide a source for your claim that they SAID Plame was covert. They ASKED for an investigation to determine if the law had been broken, they DID NOT say she was covert. If they ever said ti explicitly, provide a source as you have been asked repeatedly.

Fitzgerald made that claim, but, if we take him seriously, he is shirking his duty by not prosecuting Armitage then. Or do you think somehow the magic perjury by Libby has made it impossible to prosecute Armitage when Armitage has admitted to be ing the source.

Get the concept? Armitage SAID HE WAS THE SOURCE. If she was covert, then Armitage ADMITTED TO A CRIME. Libby's perjury in no way prevents a prosecution of that crime. So if Plame was really covert, why has Armitage not been prosecuted.

And, please, please, in the name of all that is holy, if you want to claim Libby's perjury prevents prosecution, explain why. I don't see how it could possibly stop prosecution of someone who confessed to an act.

Omission
In my first paragraph, by "they" I mean the CIA. I forgot to provide an antecedent noun. Sorry about that.

An example
Here, just to make it clear, as you seem to have some difficulty with the question:

Al kills Ben. Al admits this to Chet. On the stand Chet denies the confession, commiting perjury. Al then confesses. Why would Chet's perjury prevent the prosecution of Al?

In the same vein, how did Libby's perjury prevent the prosecution of Armitage if there were really a crime committed?

Bad example
Actually, my example is bad, as Chet actually had something to do with the crime.

A better example would be Al kills Ben. Chet is questioned and lies about an alibi, even though innocent. Al later confesses.

I can't see then declining to prosecute Al due to Chet's perjury about an unrelated alibi.

andrews
the referral from the cia stated that a cia operative had been outed.

you don't get it that is for sure.

there were three leakers.

armitage, libby and rove.

but the prosecutor wanted to know where the information about plame came from because the information about her was classified.

how did armitage, libby and rove find out she worked for the cia, none of them had the clearance so it had to come from the pres., vice pres or cia director.

he was trying to find out who initially let the cat out of the bag so to speak.

sheesh

you guys can't see the forest for the trees.
you are so caught up in proving a republican didn't lie you forget it was a crime that even libby, rove and armitage knew.

Huh??
It seems to me that Scooter Libby did the equivalent of maybe breaking a burnt out light bulb.

If Libby deserves to go to prison, Richard Armitage deserves genuine crucifixion. As does Joe Wilson.

Hamilcar Barca

Religious lib
So, why has he not indicted Armitage if he knows Armitage leaked information in violation of the law?

Also, show me where the CIA referral said that she was covert. I asked for a citation, and you, not so cleverly, still refuse to give your evidence. Everything I have read, in all media, says the CIA asked for an inquiry into whether or not the law was broken. They said nothing about whether or not she was covert in the sense of the act. Do you have proof to the contrary? Then SHOW ME! Don't tell me what you think it says, SHOW ME THE LOCATION OF THAT FACT! SHOW ME THE DOCUMENT!

Are you intentionally ignoring direct requests as you know you don't have the truth on your side, or are you just a little slow?

Religiouslib
And he was not charged with finding "the first leaker", eh was charged with determining if the leak violated the law and who leaked the information.

If all three leaked the information, then all three are guilty. Provided of course, that the information means the law applies.

If Plame was covert then Fitzgerald is charged to prosecute anyone he can prove leaked that information. So he must charge Armitage.

Do you really think Congress charged him to just find out "who was the first leaker" and then do nothing more? What world do you inhabit?

religiouslib
The CIA at no time said that Plame was still covert when her name was published. They agreed that she had been covert before but not at that time. Fitzgerald did say at the end of the trial that she was covert but never offered any proof of it and the jury was never presented any information that she was at the time of the leak.

You act like you have knowledge but the fact is you don't. No covert officer would go to their headquarters everyday. In fact the last place they would want to be seen is there. That and the fact that she had been going there for at least 6 years shows she is not covert. Even the Wilson's have never claimed she was covert at the time of the leak.

Also add the fact that if she was covert, as soon as Fitzgerald found out who the first leaker, the one who broke the law, was he would have been honor bound to charge them with the violation. He has never charged anyone with it, not because Libby lied, he knew who the leaker was before he ever talked to Libby but because there was no violation of the law.

If she had been covert, the CIA would never had brought the case to Justice. They know Robert Novack, they would have gone to him and said, don't do it and been pretty sure he wouldn't have and if he had they would have just denied she was an agent. They do it all the time.

You keep saying only the CIA and Fitzgerald kwons if she was or not. You are wrong, if she was, even Fitzgerald wouldn't have known as the CIA wouldn't have told him and he couldn't have forced them to without getting into trouble himself.

You do not seem to know how the government, especially the Intelligence part of it, works. I don't claim to be an expert about the Intelligence part but I do know how the government works, since between the military and civil service I have been in it for over 40 years.

To religiouslib
Your complaint about my supposedly being arrogant in stating facts is, as far as I am concerned, just a reflection of your inability to argue the facts in support of your positions. If you think that I have the facts wrong, then point out what specifically you think is wrong and whtat your source of information is.

To say, as you do, that only Fitzgerald and the C.I.A. know whether Plame was covert is just wrong. There is a statutory defintion of "covert" in the Agent Identities Protetion Act that has certain requirements, including a foreign posting in the last five years. Plame clearly did not meet those requirements. This is the opinion of Victoria Toensing, a Washington D.C. lawyer who drafted the Agent Identities Protection Act for the sponsorship of then Senator Barry Goldwater. My stating of this legal analysis is not arrogant. You just don't like it because it severely calls into question what has happened in the Libby case and the Fitzgerald investigation, which it does.

I submit to you that Fitzgerald and the C.I.A. really know that. Fitzgerald cannot admit to knowing that Plame was not covert; he has run a multi-year, multi-million invesigation presuming that Plame was covert; but all he has said is that he doesn't know, while in the Libbby case keeping out of the trial evidence as to what was Plame's non-covert status. This was very bad prosecutorial behavior.

As for why Libby lied, my response is that I don't think he did lie. This was a case of conflictng recollections between Libby and a few journalists of three year old conversations that no one docuemnted and that did not matter. Libby fully cooperated with the Fitzgerald investigation and testified to the grand jury numerous times at length. Libby may have misremembered some conversations with a few journalists, which would have been easy to do when the conversations are three years old and you don't have docuemnts to refresh your recollection. The prosecution witnesses at the Libby trial were shown to have terrible memories. But if Libby did lie, then I think the answer is along the lines that the editors of the Wall Street Journal Online gave yesterday in an editorial on the Libby case: he stupidly was coveing up for telling the truth about Wilson's dishonesty. But I repeat, I don't think Libby did lie.

Religiouslib
It is also not a crime that Armitage, Libby, and Rove knew she was a covert agent. There is no law making knowledge of a covert agent a crime, and I challenge you to find such a law. The law makes it a crime to disseminate such information under certain circumstances, so, even given your assumptions, if Libby, Rove and Armitage knew and should not have, whoever told them is a cirminal while they are not.

You seem to have a poor grasp of the facts for one who pretends to such great expertise.

Phil Byler
I have to agree with you. I doubt Libby ever lied. he was recalling years old conversations with journalists and his recall conflicted with those of the journalists. For some reason, the journalists were given credibility while he was not, though there was little reason to favor one over the other. (Except that favoring the journalists allowed Fitzgerald to indict a member of the administration.)

In fact, Libby was mainly hurt by being too decent. Rather than hide behind the usual facade of "I don't recall" answers to every question, he appears to have tried to answer honestly. As a result, his mistakes were turned into lies and he is now convicted.

Funny, I doubt this outcome will help any future investigations convince any witnesses to cooperate. I know, were I a politician, I would never answer any questions a special prosecutor asked, for fear of getting the same result.

Also
In addition, the conversations Libby was asked to recall likely did not seem important at the time (as they were not recorded in any writing), so I doubt he made any special effort to recall them.

Also, and most upsetting, a lot of what was called "lying" was his inability to recallt he order of calls, or the dates of specific conversations. Just imagine someone asking you if, 3 years ago, person A or person B first told you about some irrelevant bit of information, or if you told A or A told you a commonly known fact.

And, please, no one tell me this was an important conversation. Many in Washington were apparently well aware that Wilson was married to a CIA agent. In fact, by asking for her husband to be appointed for the Niger mission, Plame herself seems to have possibly exposed her position, as a preferrential selection of Wilson would have possibly exposed her position as well. It was no secret to many in Washington, government officials and reporters alike, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

And for religiouslib
There have been some who have testified that, well before Novak's article, Wilson himself told others his wife worked for the CIA. If it was such a secret, why was Wilson so ready to "blow her cover"?

For that matter
For that matter, if Wilson really did tell others his wife worked for the CIA prior to publication, why has Wilson not been charged (along with Armitage) for violating the act? At least he should ahve been investigated, as there is evidence he may have done so. Yet no one has even suggested this.

Why is that? Maybe because no cirme was committed? The only other possibility is that there was a crime and this was an entirely politicized show trial, dovish Armitage and lefty Wilson got a pass, while the right-leaning members of the administration were prosecuted.

So, which is it, Religiouslib? Was there no crime in revealing Plame, or was this a persecution of the right-wingers while the left-wingers got a pass?

Last One
I know religiouslib will dismiss this as it comes from WolrdNetDaily, but the MSM has largely ignored Vallely, so I have to cite WND.com. Sorry I couldn't find it on the HuffingtonPost, but they were too busy taking down Cheney death threats to cover this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47248
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47306

Covert? Guilty?
Guys, please give up. People like "religiouslib" do NOT want to be presented with any facts, figures, or proof that something is or is not true. That would totally ruin their slant on the administration, conservatives, or the world and, of course, their day. Someone named "religiouslib" and some of his/her friends are, right now, sticking fingers in their ears and yelling "lalalalalala", or putting their hands over their eyes, so they can't hear or see anything that doesn't support their horribly slanted view. Please don't confuse them with facts or logic. They might implode.

Hang in There, Religious Lib
I'm not a lawyer but I understand the phrase "separation of powers" pretty well. Therefore I am really dismayed to see some of the posts on townhall.com not just on this thread but on all that have discussed the Libby case. One poster said "Bush should cashier that out-of-control prosecutor"---I can't get that one out of my mind. Out of control means not running the case the way the White House wants? A prosecutor who doesn't perform to the pleasure of the White House should be "cashiered"? And a number of people want the jury's decision reversed with an immediate pardon. If you conservatives believe in the rule of law, then you might start by respecting the Judiciary. You don't like the jury's findings? Tough. You win some and you lose some, and you don't get to have your way all the time. And, re "cashiering the prosecutor", Bush already tried that bit---I speak of the eight lawyers who failed to do the administration's bidding and found themselves fired---and this matter is now the subject of a huge investigation and scandal. What don't you understand? If the Executive Branch bends the whole government into a pretzel to do as it's told, and the law be damned, we will have no democracy.

andrews
again wilson telling others is just conjecture but even then it was not leaked to the press.

you guys don't get it yet.

fitzgerald was after who initially leaked classified info to armitage, libby and rove.
none of them had the clearance so who released plames name to them in the first place.

puzzle
interesting reaction

so because i support the rule of law and know the facts with which you disagree, it appears you are the one who doesn't want facts.


fact: libby has been proven to be legally a liar.
fact: libby rove and armitage leaked the name of a cia operative.
fact: someone told libby rove and armitage classified information or they would not have known plames name.


simply answer to questions?

who gave plames name to libby rove and armitage.
why did libby lie.

conservatives don't deal with facts only their FEELINGS.



lilly
thank you

i have never seen so many people who are supposed to be conservative and patriotic who want to undermine the judical system.

they all wanted clinton impeached for perjury for lying to a grand jury but now that a republican has been tried and convicted of lying to a grand jury they all want to change the legal system.

hypocrisy thy name is republican

oh, religiouslib...
Rule of law? Libby was found guilty by a jury who, by their own words, wasn't comfortable with the verdict(but, apparently, they forced themselves to find him guilty). That still doesn't make him guilty of any of the charges. Without concrete evidence, it was a battle of the memories. His just wasn't trusted. Why?

V. Plame was not a covert agent (prove it, if she was). Re-read Novak's article. Whoever it was, said she worked for the CIA and she pulled strings to get her husband the trip to Niger to check out the attempted plutonium purchase story (which, by golly, was true). No one ever said she was covert or secret......in Washington, her employment was probably the worst kept "secret".

If she wasn't covert, it's not a leak, and no one "leaked it" or "outed her". Who, where, and when was it proved that Rove spilled the beans about a non-covert CIA agent? Of course, for many of you, the accusation IS the proof.

Leftists complain about the secretive nature of this "fascist" administration. And, yet, it's going to take the chance of outing a "secret" CIA agent to embarrass her agenda-driven husband? I have laughingly though the administration was the probably the last to know who she worked for. Armitage admitted to being the one who divulged her employment. Considering how she and her husband sought and found the limelight in D.C., her position in the CIA couldn't have been a big secret.

And, if the NY Times can print an article about truly secret, classified documents (and get away with it), who's to say some cretin there didn't leak it? Her own husband could have leaked it. If she WAS truly a covert agent, Robert Novak would have backed off at the CIA's request, and it would have stopped there.

Give me a break. When "news" agencies, and even government officials, can spread lies and leak secrets to undermine our people in danger (all with impunity), then don't tell me Mr. Libby is some felon with an agenda to ruin our country (well, maybe your country).

I'm sure you assume I am some right-wing zealot, and an apologist for the administration. I am neither. But, I would rather be that than an apologist for the far left who would rather see this country go down in flames than have this president be victorious in anything. I read yours and many other postings, and find that you get an idea, and then find blogs, "news" articles from the right newspapers, and commentators to back you up. If you paid attention to half the opposing postings in this article alone, you would have to rethink your myopic view.

You and your kind are so very tiresome. Maybe that's why I don't post too often. It's an excercise in futility with people who can't see beyond their hatred of someone. Oh, that sounds a lot like the Islamic Jihadists some of us are trying to defeat.

i don't have to prove she was covert
the federal prosecutor says she was and he had access to the classified information.
you have to prove that she wasn't. you give me one source who has direct knowledge of plames status that says she was not covert.

you cannot do it.

here is your statement.
"Libby was found guilty by a jury who, by their own words, wasn't comfortable with the verdict(but, apparently, they forced themselves to find him guilty). That still doesn't make him guilty of any of the charges. Without concrete evidence, it was a battle of the memories. His just wasn't trusted. Why?

it wasn't a battle of memories, 9 people said they discussed it with libby a month before he says he found out about it.

but the most astounding statment you make and which is typical of conservatives who live in another world than the majority of americans is
"that still doesn't make him guilty"

so if any criminal is found guilty in america by a jury, you say they are actually not guilty?
i mean read your own statement again and ask yourself if that sounds logical and rational to you.
sheesh

sell that logic to other conservatives who don't base their ideas on facts but feelings because the fact is he was found guilty but you FEEL he wasn't.

hypocrisy thy name is republican
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.