Update from the Libby trial

[iron81]

LA Times

Cliff's notes: In 2004, Former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby gave the following testimony to a grand jury:

- He admitted that the Administration orchestrated a campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson.
- That Cheney organized the campaign
- That Bush authorized the plan

Analysis: The Bush Administration's excuse why this isn't illegal is that the President is authorized to declassify whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Even if this is true, it is appalling that the President would breach national security and potentially put Valerie Plame's life in danger for political purposes.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
potentially put Valerie Plame's life in danger

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

She was "outed" by Ames, which is why she was a desk jockey at the time of this "leak".

[adios]

iron81's comments show exactly what the prosecution is trying to do, put the Bush administration on trial. The defense opened their case today, story:

Armitage outs agent in Woodward tapes

Fitzgerald new who the source of the leak was for Novak's story before he questioned Libby. Fitzgerald knew that there was no crime regarding the leak. Therefore there was no need to question Libby about anything. Fitzgerald "manufactured" a criminal case and I'm betting that Libby is exhonerated.

[kickabuck]

If the administration had a genuine disagreement with Wilson's conclusions on such an important matter, it is vital to discredit the man and his credentials so as to limit the damage done.

Who would want to take Valerie Plame's life Iron? She didn't seem too terrified hamming it up on Vanity Fair's cover.

[iron81]

I don't get what the point of attacking Fitzgerald is anymore. Even if he was out to get Bush (doubtful, he was appointed by Ashcroft), Libby basically admitted guilt on the stand. It is possible for Fitzgerald to be politically motivated and for the Admin to be guilty.

Also, it doesn't really matter whether Armitage outed Plame for purposes of this trial. It is possible for any combination of Rove, Libby and Armitage to pass the info along and whoever did it would be guilty assuming you don't buy the "Bush declassified" it defense. Fitzgerald would have no way to know about this defense until he had a chance to question everyone in the room at that time: Bush, Cheney and Libby.

I don't know who would want to take Plame's life because I don't know what her work was with the CIA. I'm just assuming there's a reason she was covert.

And Adios, I'll take $100 that Libby is convicted of at least one charge.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Libby basically admitted guilt on the stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilt of what crime?

[ QUOTE ]
And Adios, I'll take $100 that Libby is convicted of at least one charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he will. And just like Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton and countless others, he won't be convicted of any crime that occured before the actual investigation.

Libby was originally charged with obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements. IIRC, some of these have been dropped. But regardless, no charges concerning the *actual leak* have been file against *anyone*.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
And Adios, I'll take $100 that Libby is convicted of at least one charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I can get a better deal at tradesports.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what the point of attacking Fitzgerald is anymore. Even if he was out to get Bush (doubtful, he was appointed by Ashcroft), Libby basically admitted guilt on the stand. It is possible for Fitzgerald to be politically motivated and for the Admin to be guilty.



[/ QUOTE ]

Fitzgerald is a U.S. attorney charged with investigation into a possible crime, he finds that no crime has been committed, he continues the investigation none-the-less, then after determining that there is no crime with the events that caused the investigation proceeds to come up with criminal charges as a result of his investigation into a non-crime. You wonder why people attack such behavior?

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
Fitzgerald is a U.S. attorney charged with investigation into a possible crime, he finds that no crime has been committed, he continues the investigation none-the-less, then after determining that there is no crime with the events that caused the investigation proceeds to come up with criminal charges as a result of his investigation into a non-crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds exactly like a previous Republican appointed special prosecutor. Maybe we should no longer allow Republicans to run investigations, oh wait a minute, I think the last elections fixed that.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
it is appalling that the President would breach national security and potentially put Valerie Plame's life in danger for political purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Valerie Plame was not undercover so Fitzfong could not charge anyone with blowing her cover (she is a mother and her undercover days are in the past. She was strictly an analyst). Richard Armitage was the one that gave Plame's name to Novak and yet Fitzfong lets him off the hook. Why? Because Plame was NOT undercover. You keep repeating the same falsehood over-and-over.....

You are a blind true-believer. Facts mean nothing to you. You choose and outcome and cherry pick democrat spin stories that support the story you WANT to believe. Can you answer why Armitage gets to walk after he supposedly blew the cover of a covert agent? The true liar is Joseph Wilson that goes on a tax-payer paid junket to Niger and falsely claims that Cheney sent him.

What is very strange to me is:
1. Wilson gets sent on a secret mission to Niger.
2. He is not required give a written report detailing his investigation.
3. He is not required to sign a CIA confidentiality agreement and he publishes his 'secret' mission in the New York Times...

Can you not concede that publishing details of a CIA mission in the New York Times is strange?