Bush to commute Libby sentence

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
-Secondly, the fact of Armitage being the leaker of Plame's identity and covert status to Novak has nothing to do with Libby leaking Plame's identity and overt status to other reporters before the publication of Novak's column on July 14th, 2003. Specifically, in the original indictment, prosecutors contended that Libby had potentially violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by disclosing Plame's covert status to New York Times reporter Judy Miller on at least three occassions.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, and this is something that is pretty much never discussed in most coverage of this case. Fitzgerald knew that Armitage leaked to Novak, but I don't see how that should close the book on this investigation. In any case Libby's convictions were also based on when he lied to investigators in October and November 2003, before Fitzgerald was appointed! So Fitzgerald, the person in charge of this investigation is just supposed to ignore this?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
...the fact of Armitage being the leaker of Plame's identity and covert status to Novak has nothing to do with Libby leaking Plame's identity and overt status to other reporters

[/ QUOTE ]
Not a Freudian slip, this obviously should read "covert."

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who wants to biatch about this should just remember two words..Sandy Burglar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, don't really see how Sandy Berger is relevant.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who wants to biatch about this should just remember two words..Sandy Burglar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, don't really see how Sandy Berger is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, to be fair, both Berger and Libby were investigated by the George W. Bush Justice Department, prosecuted by George W. Bush-appointed United States Attorneys, and found guilty and sentenced under Republican-appointed federal judges' jurisdictions. So they've got that in common.

[CharlieDontSurf]

Is Bush a complete moron for doing this now instead of waiting till the end or at the very least like christmas time post surge etc. Seems he just threw the Dems another bone when he didn't need to.

[bdk3clash]

It's always fun (and illustrative) to observe some of the Politics forum's most vocal "conservatives" move on to greener pastures when confronted with specific, objective, and factual rebuttals to their blatantly dishonest talking points and unsubstantiated assertions.

Do you guys have anything to say about any of the following?

Copernicus:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5300 posts, Ive mentioned Clinton about 4 times, and Im "basically a...gimmick account"???? STFU...

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Adios:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plame was [not] covert...

[/ QUOTE ]
It's absolutely mind-boggling that you could make this statement. As I pointed out in this post, CIA director Michael Hayden, in a written letter to Congress, stated:

[ QUOTE ]
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I asked Felix_Nietsche at the time,

[ QUOTE ]
What information are you privy to that the director of the CIA isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Felix_Nietsche:
[ QUOTE ]
...throughout this thread I've noticed a few claims being made that are inaccurate, one of which is that Armitage not being charged with a crime for leaking Plame's identity and covert status to Novak is some sort of smoking gun for there being no "underlying crime" with which to charge Libby. A few points on this strain of thought:

-As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, the crimes for which Libby was indicted--perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice--do not require that the defendant perjured, made false statements, nor obstructed justice in relation to an "underlying crime" that he committed (or was accused of committing.)
-Secondly, the fact of Armitage being the leaker of Plame's identity and covert status to Novak has nothing to do with Libby leaking Plame's identity and covert [edit] status to other reporters before the publication of Novak's column on July 14th, 2003. Specifically, in the original indictment, prosecutors contended that Libby had potentially violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by disclosing Plame's covert status to New York Times reporter Judy Miller on at least three occassions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I eagerly await your responses.

[adios]

Read at least three different posts I made about it. One was a link to Chicago Tribune article showing that the info on Plame's CIA status was available on the internet. One was some comments from Al Gore's lawyer. And at least one (I'm sure more) indicated that Armitage was never charged with leaking the name of a covert CIA agent by Fitzgerald. The obvious reason was that she wasn't covert. If she was a covert agent then Fitzgerald would have charged Armitage.

Again the only person charged with a crime was Scooter Libby and it was for obstructing justice and perjury. Nobody was charged with leaking the name of a covert CIA agent i.e. classified information because nobody did.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious reason was that she wasn't covert. If she was a covert agent then Fitzgerald would have charged Armitage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the obvious reason, but its not the only reason. I recall reading at the time that the reason no one was charged with leaking Plame's name was that Fitzgerald couldn't prove that Armitage or Libby knew that Plame was covert. That was a necessary element of the crime.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The obvious reason was that she wasn't covert. If she was a covert agent then Fitzgerald would have charged Armitage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the obvious reason, but its not the only reason. I recall reading at the time that the reason no one was charged with leaking Plame's name was that Fitzgerald couldn't prove that Armitage or Libby knew that Plame was covert. That was a necessary element of the crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you post a link to the law your referring to so we can all read it. To be honest, I think it's high time we had a look at it and if you guys don't have any context as to what law was allegedly violated in revealing the covert agents status I'm not sure why we're discussing this.

[iron81]

Here's a NYT article on that subject.