tbrown 26 #51 March 7, 2007 The answer is not letting Scooter Libby go, it's getting the rest of those fuckers - including Bush, after he leaves the White House - and locking their asses in prison where they belong. This entire affair has been a pre-meditated and orchestrated operation to a.) stifle and discredit an American diplomat for trying to warn the public that the administration was LYING through their teeth, b.) revealing the identity of an American intelligence officer, which is rightly a FELONY, and c.) using the entire excercise to intimidate and persecute (and prosecute) the press for their attempts to investigate and report on the whole shitty mess. I say fuck 'em all - and get a rope. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #52 March 7, 2007 Wilson confirmed that SH was trying to get the cake. She was not a covert agent as required for her 'outing' to be a crime per the intelligence act. She had outed herself. She did recommend her husband to go to Niger on the mission. Even David Boies (Gore lawyer after 2000 election) says that the special prosecutor knew Libby did not leak Plame's identity, and that there was no need for the questioning of Libby.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,417 #53 March 7, 2007 >She was not a covert agent . . . All this "he didn't do anything wrong! She wasn't a secret agent! Even if she was, everyone knew! And even if they didn't, someone else did it first!" is getting a little pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #54 March 7, 2007 Quote>She was not a covert agent . . . All this "he didn't do anything wrong! She wasn't a secret agent! Even if she was, everyone knew! And even if they didn't, someone else did it first!" is getting a little pathetic. Just calling it pathetic is pathetic, and a fine example of a pathetic logical fallacy. Every single bit of what you call pathetic is true and highly relevant, all of it. She wasn't a covert agent, and she wasn't secret. Both at the same time. Don't you think that is important, as it was the nature of the original investigation, and the person that divulged her not secret identity of not being a secret agent was known to the special prosecutor long before any testimony was taken before the grand jury. Of course the administration went after Joe Wilson. He was doing a hit job, made possible because his wife recommended him for the job of going to Niger to investigate - where he did actually admit SH was seeking the yellow cake. Ignoring all of that is pathetic. The fact that the grand jury wasn't allowed to hear that is pathetic. The fact that a juror admitted to wanting Rove prosecuted is pathetic.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #55 March 7, 2007 Quote >The goal of Starr was to hurt the opposing >party's President. He succeeded. Fair enough. So you admit the goal there was political in nature rather than a prosecution of a crime; I wish more right-wingers could bring themselves to see this. In that case, I agree that Starr succeeded. Where's the right winger? I'm the one that's smart enough to know that Clinton committed a crime and that the Starr commission was trying to nail him for anything they could. For some reason you can't view these matters any less personally than the wingnuts. You're smart enough to know better, but often you choose to play the left winger role. I hope it's for entertainment value - any other reason is pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,417 #56 March 7, 2007 >Where's the right winger? They're all over - the ones claiming that Clinton was successfully impeached for perjury, and then claiming that lying about blowjobs is as bad or worse than lying about outing a CIA agent. > I'm the one that's smart enough to know that Clinton committed a >crime and that the Starr commission was trying to nail him for anything >they could. For some reason you can't view these matters any less >personally than the wingnuts. Clinton was exonerated of that crime. The only thing more tiresome than left wingers who claim he did nothing wrong are right wingers who refuse to acknowledge that the impeachment failed. The equivalent would be if Libby had been found not guilty, and all the left wingers spent the next ten years saying "But he was GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!" every time the subject came up. (I mean, they still will do just that, but at least it will be accurate now.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #57 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteShould Bush pardon Scooter Libby if Libby's inevitable appeal fail and his conviction is upheld? No. He broke a law and should not get a pass. If he really was "made" to do it...Let him turn Cheney in for a smaller sentance just like other criminals do. If the Bushies thought for a minute that he would bring down Cheney, he would have beed dead quite a while ago. Yeah, just like the guy that made "Loose Change", right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #58 March 7, 2007 If Bush pardons Libby, it will conclusively demonstrate they really feel they're above the law.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #59 March 7, 2007 Given that there was no apparent wrong doing found in the actual "outing" of Ms. Plame, I'm going to say no pardon. Libby was convicted of actions taken during the investigation, not over anything related to what the investigation was about. Do I think Mr. Libby should appeal, definitely. Prosecutor Fitzgerald grasped at a staw and got one, but not because of the article Novak wrote. Nevermind whether or not Ms. Plame was in a protected position or not, what we know from this investigation and trial is that Mr. Libby was not involved in the disclosure of her role. The person that did that has publicly taken responsibility. Did he lie to investigators, the jury said yes. I'm disappointed, but I also wasn't at the trial. Either way, it's an empty conviction. If it was a crime that Ms. Plame's identity was revealed publicly, then why wasn't Mr. Armitage charged with anything?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #60 March 7, 2007 QuoteIf it was a crime that Ms. Plame's identity was revealed publicly, then why wasn't Mr. Armitage charged with anything? It wasn't a crime. The special prosecutor knew that, and knew that Armitage had been the one that told Novak long before anyone testified before anybody.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #61 March 7, 2007 Quote>In this case, the goal was the prosecution of a man who covered up the outing of a CIA agent. That was successful as well. nonsense, they also were looking for bigger fish to fry "I wish more left winger could bring themselves to see this" (Except they do, they just aren't allowed to say it in public) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #62 March 7, 2007 Quote She was not a covert agent Where in CIA do you work? I mean, to be so sure you must have access to that info, right? You do know that the identity of covert agents is probably one of the highest guarded secrets we have, right? And if Valerie was or wasn't, the agency will do what it takes to cloud the waters on this issue? But you must know all that.... working down at Langley and all... -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #63 March 7, 2007 QuoteThe fact that a juror admitted to wanting Rove prosecuted is pathetic. Plame's employment status at the CIA was classified at the time of the leak, irregardless of whether or not she was "currently" covert. Cheney, Rove, Libby and probably others knowingly leaked her status as an act of political retribution, and that disclosure effectively ended Plame's career. It was an indefensible, politically calculated act. Any career employee would lose their security clearance and their job for making such a disclosure. If the White House thought Plame or Wilson had acted improperly by using their official positions to further a political agenda, then they should have had the IG's at the CIA and the Department of State investigate their suspicions. It's called acting with integrity, accountability, and professionalism, and the Bush administration does not believe it is bound by those standards. And about the cake...everybody knows he wanted WMD materials, he was a whackjob. That's what whackjobs want...cake. Knowing that somebody wants cake and actually documenting their actions to get the cake are entirely different things. Documenting the overt act of getting the cake is actionable, someone merely wanting cake is not actionable...unless you lie about it._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #64 March 7, 2007 QuoteGiven that there was no apparent wrong doing found in the actual "outing" of Ms. Plame, I'm going to say no pardon. Libby was convicted of actions taken during the investigation, not over anything related to what the investigation was about. Do I think Mr. Libby should appeal, definitely. Prosecutor Fitzgerald grasped at a staw and got one, but not because of the article Novak wrote. Nevermind whether or not Ms. Plame was in a protected position or not, what we know from this investigation and trial is that Mr. Libby was not involved in the disclosure of her role. The person that did that has publicly taken responsibility. Did he lie to investigators, the jury said yes. I'm disappointed, but I also wasn't at the trial. Either way, it's an empty conviction. If it was a crime that Ms. Plame's identity was revealed publicly, then why wasn't Mr. Armitage charged with anything? Excellent summary. Too bad so many people seem to think Libby's conviction some how proves the White House intentionally leaked classified information as an act of retribution. Wasn't Armitage the one who leaked the info? Why wasn't he charged with anything? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 March 7, 2007 Because it was never actually about the leak...it was about "get the Repubs"...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #66 March 7, 2007 QuoteWasn't Armitage the one who leaked the info? Why wasn't he charged with anything? There is a process by which the agency who owns the information can identify it and properly declassify it. The president and his delegated appointees have the authority to order that declassification process to take place. I would be interested to know if any such orders were given or if they simply made rogue disclosures of classified information for political purposes._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #67 March 7, 2007 QuoteCheney, Rove, Libby and probably others knowingly leaked her status as an act of political retribution Was that what Fitzgerald concluded? Or is this just a widely believed theory? I keep waiting for proof of such a conspiracy, but all I hear is rhetoric. Patrick Moynihan once said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #68 March 7, 2007 Quote She was not a covert agent From the indictment: f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #69 March 7, 2007 Quote Wasn't Armitage the one who leaked the info? Why wasn't he charged with anything? Rove too. He told both Novak and Cooper. I don't know why no one was charged. Deal maybe. Libby was charged because his testimony obstructed the investigation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuote She was not a covert agent From the indictment: f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Must've been those Langley cocktail parties where Wilson was introducing his "CIA Wife", then...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #71 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuote She was not a covert agent From the indictment: f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Exept to her neighbors and the paperboy and vanity fair magazine. Her face in that magazine was enough to put the clues together for even the french. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #72 March 7, 2007 QuoteWas that what Fitzgerald concluded? Or is this just a widely believed theory?...Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions. In Libby's testimony to the Grand Jury he said that Cheney instructed him to give the classified information to the media. Conclude what you wish._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #73 March 7, 2007 Quote Must've been those Langley cocktail parties where Wilson was introducing his "CIA Wife", then... Everyone must have been wasted at that party because her neighbors didn't remember anything. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58650-2003Oct7?language=printer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #74 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteWas that what Fitzgerald concluded? Or is this just a widely believed theory?...Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions. In Libby's testimony to the Grand Jury he said that Cheney instructed him to give the classified information to the media. Conclude what you wish. About Plame working for the CIA? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #75 March 7, 2007 Wilson was the one that "outed" his wife in the Who's Who. It was common knowledge among journalists, and advertised by themselves in vanity fair. The intelligence committee in the senate found Wilson's accusations against the administration to be false, except that he was correct that SH had indeed sought the yellow cake as had been reported earlier by a UN investigation. It was not just that they concluded SH wanted it, he sought it from sources in Africa. Wilson confirmed that in his report, but then went on to make allegations found to be false by the senate. It has also been confirmed that Plame was indeed the one that got Wilson assigned the task of doing the investigation, apparently so he would have the opportunity to make allegations against the admin - later shown to be false. The woman that wrote the Intelligence act says she thinks that Libby was not guilty of breaking that law. David Boies (Gore's 2000 election lawyer) can't understand why the special prosecutor didn't stop when he found out Armitage was the leaker of the not so secret info.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
