Bush to commute Libby sentence

[adios]

.....

[ElliotR]

adios (#11036675 - 07/03/07 07:28 AM)

[ QUOTE ]
One last thought from me on this

[/ QUOTE ]

My response (#11037162 - 07/03/07 09:03 AM)

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

adios (#11038200 - 07/03/07 11:09 AM)

[ QUOTE ]
I'm done with this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

adios (#11128394 - 07/10/07 01:25 AM)

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah same old GOP talking points blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

Soooooooo predictable..... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Taraz]

adios,

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't the prosecutor go after Libby because he had reason to believe Cheney was involved and Libby was covering for him? I thought that was the whole deal on this point. Cheney had been working behind the scenes and Libby refused to talk about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
adios,

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't the prosecutor go after Libby because he had reason to believe Cheney was involved and Libby was covering for him? I thought that was the whole deal on this point. Cheney had been working behind the scenes and Libby refused to talk about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

To Elliot:

Posters apparently still want me to comment on it as evidenced by thio post I'm responding to and this one by bdk3clash:

[ QUOTE ]
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?

Adios
[ QUOTE ]
[quotePlame 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 ]

No doubt he'll be responding again too so if people keep wanting me to comment so be it. Just skip the posts.

To Taraz:

Fitzgerald knew who the leak came from before he asked Libby question uno. Fitzgerald also determined that no crime had been committed by Armitage before he asked Armitage question uno.

[75s]

I believe the president has the right to declassify agent's identitites. If he tells someone to disclose that info, neither he nor the discloser is comitting a crime.

My take is that what was done was legal but unethical As a result prosecutor went after Libby, the only one involved who committed a crime (perjury).

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read the Tribune article you linked to earlier. It most assuredly does not "show...that the info on Plame's CIA status was available on the internet [before the publication of Novak's column.]"

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication is clear that this info has been available a long time before 2003.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only "info" that the article you linked to mentions is Plame's "tenure as a junior diplomat in the U.S. Embassy in Athens." I have no idea how you could reasonably conclude that "Plame's [covert] CIA status was available on the internet" prior to the publication of Novak's column.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"What's this 'we', white man?"

[/ QUOTE ]
And what's this supposed to mean???

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a line from an old joke that I thought most people were familiar with.

Tonto and the Lone Ranger are riding through the plains one day when they're suddenly confronted by a large group of hostile Native Americans. The Lone Ranger says, "Tonto, what are we going to do?"

Tonto responds, "What's this 'we', white man?"

[ QUOTE ]
So??????????? Armitage did leak the name intentionally. Where is your link to the law? I have my doubts whether or not you've read it. I have a link to the law and I've read it. I've read various opinions as well. The bottom line is that if Fitzgerald thought he had a case for violation of the law in question he'd have certainly prosecuted. He didn't and that's as obvious as something can be. The idea that Armitage isn't responsible and accountable is completely ludicrus. That's more or less what you're arguing when you and iron81 state that Armitage wasn't prosecuted because he didn't know that Plame was a covert agent. It's clear from reading material on this that Plame's covert status is as Boies put it an "open question" at the very least. Since Fitzgerald had the resources he had at his disposal and the motivation to indict and prosecute a possible crime it's clear to me that he had no evidence to back it up, at least not enough evidence to try and convince a jury. The law is complicated and I think it's fair to say that because the law is complicated making a case for violating the law is something that Fitzgerald was in the best position to do. He would first have to convince a jury that Plame was covert which again I think at the very least is as Boies put it "an open question." You guys are apparently asserting that she was covert without a doubt and I don't think you can make that claim with any degree of certainty. If Fitzgerald believed he could have convinced a jury that she was covert he would have prosecuted someone violating the law and that person would have been Armitage.

[/ QUOTE ]
(You might want to consider condensing what you're saying or breaking it into smaller paragraphs. This is a tough passage to slog through.)

As I stated before, if you have any evidence that Armitage thought he was disclosing Plame's covert status with the CIA I'd love to see it. As I've made abundantly clear, this would be a key requirement to prosecuting Armitage (and Libby, for similar disclosures to Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller) with violating the IIPA.

[ QUOTE ]
Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982) if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no such requirement defined by the IIPA. (Feel free to quote whichever passage you feel is relevant if you disagree.) Additionally, Plame did serve on overseas missions in the five years prior to the leaks.

[ QUOTE ]
To Taraz:

Fitzgerald knew who the leak came from before he asked Libby question uno. Fitzgerald also determined that no crime had been committed by Armitage before he asked Armitage question uno.

[/ QUOTE ]
As is abundantly clear, Fitzgerald was investigating multiple leaks of Plame's status as a CIA operative, including but not limited to Armitage's leaks to Bob Woodward and Novakula and Libby's leaks to Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. How you can claim that Fitzgerald "determined that no crime had been committed by Armitage before he asked Armitage question uno" remains an elusive mystery to me.

Keep in mind that the are multiple facts that could have been leaked:

1: Valerie Plame worked for the CIA
2: Valerie Plame's role at the CIA was covert, secret, or undercover

It's possible for a leaker to know both #1 and #2 and only leak #1. It's also possible for a leaker to know #1 only and therefore leak #1 only, which does not change the fact that #2 is also true. This appears to be the case with both Libby and Armitage, and why Fitzgerald ultimately declined to prosecute either of them.

It seems plainly obvious to me (and, I think, any rational observer) conclusion that Fitzgerald concluded that neither Fitzgerald's nor Libby's leak met the standard of proof required by the IIPA of
[ QUOTE ]
knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

[/ QUOTE ]
but that in the course of his investigation determined that Libby obstructed justice, gave false statements, and perjured himself.

[GoodCallYouWin]

I think everyone should be encouraged to start leaking CIA agent's names to the press, then maybe they'd stop going around over throwing other governments and killing brown people.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

To Taraz:

Fitzgerald knew who the leak came from before he asked Libby question uno. Fitzgerald also determined that no crime had been committed by Armitage before he asked Armitage question uno.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if Armitage had leaked the name (which is unclear according to some), why does that mean that nobody else could have been conspiring to leak this information? Couldn't two people be leaking this information? Isn't the special prosecutor's job to find out everything that went on in relation to this outing? If there was no underlying crime, why did Libby lie under oath? What was he trying to protect?

[ConstantineX]

Isn't what he was trying to hide immaterial, if anything? You know, the 5th?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't what he was trying to hide immaterial, if anything? You know, the 5th?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the 5th Amendment does not give you the right to perjure yourself, obstruct justice, or give false statements.