Captain's Quarters -

Cap,

Did Libby lie to protect Armitage only to have Richard finally admit his role or what was Libby lying about???

Andy says he dreads the next time a high-ranking liberal Democrat lies to investigators. When conservatives call for his head, a lot of what has been written and said in this debate will get thrown back in our faces.

At the same time, we'll have a lot of material to throw back in their face. It won't necessarily be up to the coservatives to call for his head, but up to the Democrats to explain to the media (hopefully with the help of news outlets, which is another issue in itself) why they aren't calling for the head of their own when put in a similar situation. I'd like to see if they put their money where their mouth is, sack up, and burn their own. Chances are no, but if we can hammer out the double standard, then fantastic.

However, if the media treatment (near blackout) of the William Jefferson indictment is any example, we're always going to be on the losing side of the battle of the perception of morality. We're Republicans...remember...we eat babies and hate minorities.

I blame Bush.

When this whole thing started becoming a cause célèbre for leftists, Bush came out with a ridiculously sweeping statement to the effect that "anyone in my administration who has been leaking on this will be gone" or some such.

Libby didn't lie to avoid indictment for "outing" a covert agent - which Plame clearly was NOT, Fitzgerald's opinion notwithstanding - but rather to keep his job. Even had it been known Armitage was the first - and unindicted - leaker, Bush would have been challenged to follow up on his promise.

I agree he was guilty of perjury, but I still do not see how he is guilty of obstruction, since his perjury did not prevent the government (Fitzgerald) from discovering any material fact in the case. Fitzgerald already KNEW the answer to the question he was assigned to investigate before he ever called Libby before the Grand Jury.

Scooter should do time with Bill Clinton.

Adjoran said:

"Libby didn't lie to avoid indictment for "outing" a covert agent - which Plame clearly was NOT, Fitzgerald's opinion notwithstanding - but rather to keep his job. "

Valerie Plame's step-son Junior, AKA Tom Shipley, will be along shortly to show you the light.

And Frank Warner said:

"Scooter should do time with Bill Clinton".

And Mrs. Bill Clinton. And Sandy Berger. And even that guy who was Bill's Veep, who claimed "no controlling legal authority" when asked about his money-raising adventures in a Buddhist Temple.

Plame WAS covert, only the most radical right-wing kool-aid drinking neo-con mouthbreathers would still deny this. Cheney should be in prison garb with Scooter, he's the one who ordered Scooter to go out and spread mis-information. History will judge this collection of clowns (Bush Administration) very harshly.

Captain, for another view you should also post Mark Levin's response to Andy's comments on Libby.

Bad Fitz [Mark R. Levin]

I must respond to my friend Andy. The argument that lying before a grand jury is a prosecutable crime is not unknown to anyone here. It's the circumstances of this case, and specifically Patrick Fitzgerald's behavior, that causes many of us concern — as did Lawrence Walsh's conduct. I am very comfortable with my position and NRO’s. When a prosecutor acts as Fitzgerald has, both in bringing this case and in the sentencing phase, he should be condemned. There are many terrific prosecutors out there who would never have acted as he has. As for comparisons to Bill Clinton, which have been made to justify the prosecution of Libby, let’s take a more lawyerly look: Clinton had his attorney unwittingly prepare a knowingly false affidavit, which was introduced during the course of his sworn deposition. Clinton had his subordinates repeat his knowingly false statements during both a grand jury investigation and civil litigation. Clinton’s repeated lies before a grand jury and during his deposition were not only material and relevant to underlying crimes, but the conduct went to the core of the investigation and civil suit. It’s absurd to make comparisons between Clinton and Libby.

So, I am more than happy to take up Andy’s challenge, or anybody else’s for that matter. And I am certain that those here who have expressed legitimate outrage in the Libby case do so not because he is a Republican, but because it is, in fact, an outrage. I denounce what Fitzgerald has done because I believe in the system of justice.
06/07 05:49 PM

"Plame WAS covert, only the most radical right-wing kool-aid drinking neo-con mouthbreathers would still deny this."

I guess that includes Susan Estrich?

http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich.html

As a law enforcement officer, the law is clearly not black and white, and the use of discretion would have better suited Libby's predicament.

But the Fitz man was lookin' for a scalp and Libby conveniently provided one.

Both individuals are idiots!

If anyone thinks the Democrats will start playing fair because the Republicans put one of their own in prison, they haven 't been watching closely. Democrats think nothing of raising hell over a fallen Republican when one of their own does the same thing or worse. "Civility"-- hell. To them, it is all war. Do the right thing if it is truly the right thing. But if you are doing it in hopes your opponent will reciprocate, your reward will be dust in your mouth.

Whatever happens to Liddy, there is an unintended message that will come out of all this: don't talk to reporters. Just for the sake of self-interest in avoiding legal hazards, future Joes and Janes in government will increasingly take the lesson and refuse any comment to the press.

I have spoken to the press myself only to have what I said contorted beyond recognition when it "appeared" in print. If a reporter's rendition or memory of what I said becomes the basis of legal prosecution, I sure wouldn't trust anyone in the media.

"Plame WAS covert, only the most radical right-wing kool-aid drinking neo-con mouthbreathers would still deny this."

Joe,

Please post your proof. Until you, or others, poas facts establishing that Plame was a covert agent, I will continue to believe that the most distrssing thing about this affair is not whether Libby lied but that a prosecutor hauled a citizen before a Grand Jury without first establishing that a crime had been committed..

Unless Fitz was investigating a crime his conduct was a gross abuse of process.

So post your proof that Plame was covert. If she wasn't the investigation and the trial of Libby was illegitimate and an affront to the rule of law.

Here you go Terry:

Here's exhibit A in Fitzgerald's prosecution. It's a declassified summary of her employment history with the CIA. It states:

A) Plame was a covert agent.

B) She worked overseas within a 5-years under official and NOC cover. (the summary states she was assigned to CPD at Langley in 2002 and during her time there she made 7-10 trips overseas with both official and NOC cover).

C) The CIA took affirmative steps to keep her identity a secret.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

Plame was definately NOT covert under the statute which is precisely the excuse given for not prosecuting Armitage (or her husband who was more than likely the original leaker).

Andy McCarthy has steadfastly defended his pal Fitz. That is a mistake. Fitz' ethics in this case rival Nifong's in the Duke case.

We now have the complete criminialization of politics. At this rate, HIllary best watch out.

Jane,

What do you base your belief on?

AGAIN, here's why Plame was a covert agent at the time of the leak:

Here's how the statute defines "covert."

(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency— (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

Here's exhibit A in Fitzgerald's prosecution. It's a declassified summary of her employment history with the CIA. It states:

A) CIA classified her as a covert agent and that this information was classified.

B) She worked overseas within a 5-years under official and NOC cover. (the summary states she was assigned to CPD at Langley in 2002 and during her time there she made 7-10 trips overseas with both official and NOC cover).

C) The CIA took affirmative steps to keep her identity a secret.

So Jane, where's your proof that she "definitely" not covered by the statute.

Tom, Tom, Tom.

Back with the covert junk?
Get your facts straight.

- The bumbling CIA didn't say she was covert until the trial was over.
- When asked, CIA told Bob Novak to go ahead and publish her name.
- Andrea Mitchell said on nationwide TV that everybody knew about her.

Covert? Joke. It was a lynching, and you're part of the mob trying to justify it while the body turns in the wind. Fool.

Gee tom, with all that evidence at your disposal, I have to ask why fitz didn't indict ANYONE for outing what you insist was a covert agent? he knew joe wilson and richard armitage leaked the information....why didn't he indict them? he managed to get convictions against Libby, but not for outing a covert agent....why not? the problem with your "evidence" is that it's all a phantom....you are carefully choosing little unrelated bits of information and trying to convice people that they all add up to a crime, for which no one was ever convicted or even prosecuted....you know what we call that? Propaganda....and that makes you a political hack with zero ethics and fewer brains....hope your momma's proud.

Gee tom, with all that evidence at your disposal, I have to ask why fitz didn't indict ANYONE for outing what you insist was a covert agent? he knew joe wilson and richard armitage leaked the information....why didn't he indict them? he managed to get convictions against Libby, but not for outing a covert agent....why not? the problem with your "evidence" is that it's all a phantom....you are carefully choosing little unrelated bits of information and trying to convice people that they all add up to a crime, for which no one was ever convicted or even prosecuted....you know what we call that? Propaganda....and that makes you a political hack with zero ethics and fewer brains....hope your momma's proud.

Amicus,

Mitchell clarified her statement saying she was referring to AFTER the Novak column when she said Plame's identity was widely known:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/10/91245.shtml

Harlow, Novak's CIA source, says he repeatedly warned Novak not to publish information about Plame:

PINCUS (7/27/05): Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission [to Niger] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

And I find it funny how you can just ignore this:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

I have to ask why fitz didn't indict ANYONE for outing what you insist was a covert agent?

Well, runaway, there are presumably a couple reasons:

The statute protecting covert agents’ identities states that those revealing classified information that IDs an covert agent must KNOW that agent was covert. Fitzgerald obviously doesn’t have a strong enough case that Armitage, Libby and Rove knew Plame was covert.

This is in part because of Libby’s perjury. Fitzgerald said this last week about Libby’s obstruction.

It “made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions.”

Amicus,

Mitchell clarified her statement saying she was referring to AFTER the Novak column when she said Plame's identity was widely known:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/10/91245.shtml

Harlow, Novak's CIA source, says he repeatedly warned Novak not to publish information about Plame:

PINCUS (7/27/05): Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission [to Niger] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

And I find it funny how you can just ignore this:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

What do you base your belief on?

Tom,

It's not a "belief" it's a fact. If Plame was covert the person who outed her would have been prosecuted under the IIPA. No one was. That was because she did not qualify under the statute as covert. If you disagree, can you point to where in the statute she qualifies, and then render your opinion as to why no one was prosecuted? Thanks

Jane,

I presume you didn't read my last response to you, so here we go AGAIN!

Here's how the statute defines "covert."

(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency— (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

I'll go through this step-by-step for you, to make it easy.

According to the above text, for an agent to be covert they must

A) Work for the CIA.

B) There status is covert and classified.

C) They must have served overseas within the past 5 years.

Here's exhibit A in Fitzgerald's prosecution. It's a declassified summary of her employment history with the CIA. It states:

A) CIA classified her as a covert agent and that this information was classified.

B) She worked overseas within a 5-years under official and NOC cover. (7 trips overseas with both official and NOC cover).

C) The CIA took affirmative steps to keep her identity a secret.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

As to why nobody was indicted for IDing a covert agent, here's a response I've already posted:

The statute protecting covert agents’ identities states that those revealing classified information that IDs an covert agent must KNOW that agent was covert. Fitzgerald obviously doesn’t have a strong enough case that Armitage, Libby and Rove knew Plame was covert.

This is in part because of Libby’s perjury. Fitzgerald said this last week about Libby’s obstruction.

It “made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions.”

This...

If Plame was covert the person who outed her would have been prosecuted under the IIPA.

is faulty logic.

Tom,

The CIA can classify her anyway they want, but if she doesn't qualify as covert under the statute, she is not covert. An "unclassified summary" is not an appropriate submission of proof particularly when the statute is available.

But let's pretend for the sake of argument that you are right. Why was no one prosecuted for outing her? Do you think it was a political decision?

Since Fitz knew that Armitage outed Plame long before Libby testified to the grand jury, or in fact long before Libby was investigated, just how did Libby obstruct an investigation into Plame's covertness?

The CIA can classify her anyway they want, but if she doesn't qualify as covert under the statute, she is not covert. An "unclassified summary" is not an appropriate submission of proof particularly when the statute is available.

Jane, then what is? What is your proof that she wasn't covert?

The unclassified summary of Plame's CIA service shows that Plame does fit the statute's definition of covert. Do you disagree with this?

And in response to your second question... can you seriously not read? This is the THIRD TIME I've posted this. What about this don't you not understand or take issue with?

The statute protecting covert agents’ identities states that those revealing classified information that IDs an covert agent must KNOW that agent was covert. Fitzgerald obviously doesn’t have a strong enough case that Armitage, Libby and Rove knew Plame was covert.

This is in part because of Libby’s perjury. Fitzgerald said this last week about Libby’s obstruction.

It “made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions.”

A little more background as to why no indictment for outing Plame. Fitzgerald clearly believes this crime could have taken place because a covert agent's identity was revealed by three white house sources. He just doesn't have enough evidence to prove they knew she was covert and they knowingly outed her.

This is a quoted from him from last week:

To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President.

Nice try Tom.

But if Fitz knew in advance he couldn't meet the burden of proof that someone knew about Plame's covert status, that means he was intentionally going on a perjury-fishing expedition because he already knew... according to your own theory... he had no case he could bring on the actual reason for his investigation to exist.

It seems you have shot yourself in the foot.

Uh, no Ryan,

Fitz didn't know in advance that he couldn't meet the burden of proof. He was trying to gain evidence to figure out the extent of Libby's/Rove's/Armitage's knowledge of Plame's CIA status when Libby lied to him.

Again, I direct you to Fitz' statement from last week.

Libbty's perjury "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions.”

What if, as appears likely based on the circumstances, Cheney did initiate and orchestrate the whole sordid affair? Then there would be a crime, or at least until it reached the courts and they agreed with Victoria Toensing's interpretation of the law. (By the way, who made her a judge? Last I heard she wasn't even nominated, let alone confirmed. And, since she isn't a judge, her opinion isn't binding on any court.)

Cheney could not have even reasonably argued that he did not know Plame/Wilson was covert, as both Libby and Armitage could (and you are free to believe them if you wish.) The only evidence of Cheney's crime would have been the word of Libby, who carried out Cheney's hatchet job.

If you think this scenario just can't be true, you haven't been paying attention. And if it is true, then Cheney committed a crime (or at least a putative crime) and has gotten away with it.

Tom Shipley--
Your library of at-hand sources gives away your motives, and probably your affiliation.

Quite a body of purposely built-up, off-the-shelf, self justifying statements. But Andrea Mitchell? Next you'll cite Russert's poor memory. Very sad.

Of course Andrea Mitchell "clarified" her statement. But, then, she has to restate everything not written down for her; she frequently exposes her thoughts. How about the time she blurted out "Indeed Bryan," when NBC's evening talking head compared Iraqi terrorists to American Revolutionary partiots. "Indeed Bryan." Indeed, Tom. She just didn't want to testify. Slippery. Would that she had "clarified" under oath, hmmm?

Here's covert for you. From the beginning this was a hit job. And as you brilliantly attest, they got away with it. Lynch mob: one with bad aim. No shining moment for DOJ, which fell for the op, or worse. Now we have a sacred verdict to hide the op behind. Justice served. Move along, folks; mind the gap; nothing here to see. Shameful.

Your library of at-hand sources gives away your motives, and probably your affiliation.

It's called google, dude.

And yes, I have a meeting with Mr. Soros to report on my progress at 1pm CST.

I find it very funny/sad that the fact that I back up all my claims with solid evidence is used against me.

Then you go off on this conspiracy theory with ZERO proof to back it up.

I mean, fine, it's that's your argument, more power to you. I just have to have faith that any rational person will see I've made very good points in defense of my arguments while you have not.

Jane, then what is? What is your proof that she wasn't covert?

She doesn't qualify under the statute.

Do you really believe that if she did, Fitz would not have brought charges? Do you believe he is trying to protect Armitage? At any rate, none of that has a thing to do with Libby.

The unclassified summary of Plame's CIA service shows that Plame does fit the statute's definition of covert. Do you disagree with this?

No, I don't agree that is true, I agree the summary asserts that. First of all the CIA has a bit of a problem (as does Plame, Waxman and most people who are out to get this administration) mixing up the words classified and covert, and ex-CIA people will say that the words are interchanged freely with no meaning attached. So I find MSNBC's rendition, unpersuasive. I also find it unpersuasive because Plame was outed years ago by Aldrich Ames, and because she worked at Langley, and because she told a married man what she did for a living on their second date. She certainly did nothing to protect any covertness.

It seems you have shot yourself in the foot.

That's an honor shared by the whole pro fitz crew. Including Andy McCarthy.

Sorros?
Is that a slip of the tongue to bring him up? "Indeed Bryan?"

Thanks for your work on this, Tom. Very concise and ordered.

No problem, Kevin.

Amicus, George Soros' Web handle is Kevin. Write that down. You're through the looking glass.

Tom--
Help me out: Kevin? Soros? And so...? Do you think I'd suggest you work for Soros? Fitzgerald, maybe.

BTW, I haven't seen you flip up any Google cites for David Korn or Armitage. Where've they been been lately?

Of course, no need to do that once Libby became the mark. The crime didn't matter. Fitzgerald just changed the subject. Moreover, it's not very instructive to constantly cite the brief for the sentence phase, and then call it proof. He changed the subject again, and yes, got away with it. Justice? Nope.

This all reminds me of the way our star prosecutor, whom you cite incessantly, and DOJ bungled the Ali Mohamad case. Google that, or Peter Lance. In Libby, inside operators ran circles around him, not terrorists. Feel safe?

Tom--

Did you see this? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/libby_motion_for_release_pendi.html

Note number 5., regarding Andrea "Oh, I misspoke" Mitchell. It may be that things have just gotten started.

I would say that all of the vitriol over the past few days is over the sentence as much as anything. James Otis at the Washington Post has a good read. Keep your Google button nearby.

I have to wonder Tom, what you thought of Clinton's acquittal, given Kevin Starr's report.

Well Yell,

I think Clinton had a few things going for him:

A) He was president.

B) He, unlike Libby, lied about personal affair that was unrelated to the crime for which he was being investigated.

C) His popularity actually rose during the impeachment hearing and trial.

It's a big deal to remove a sitting president. I believe it's only been done once. I think the general will of the people was that they didn't want him to be removed for this offense. And considering he perjured himself about a matter that was unrelated to the crime he was being investigated for, the Senate did not vote to impeach and remove him from office.

Actually, it's never been done, but it's been tried twice. Before Clinton, Andrew Johnson got impeached by the House, but the Senate failed to remove him by a single vote.

Thanks for the clarification, Ed.

Tom Shipley and Cap'n Ed--

The interesting stuff may be just getting underway. Check this out:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/prominent_law_professors_quest_1.html

Note the appeal brief was filed. Tom, we may get to see Andrea Mitchell under oath yet.

If I remember right ... Hillary and Bill Clinton lied to the Federal grand jury over whitwater file's and Bill told the American people on TV that he never lied "about that girl" .... I'm 86yr's old & all politicians refuse to tell the truth .... Just look at the imigration bill ... When I was a very young boy my Grandfather took me downtown with him to hear a politician stand on the back of a hay wagon and talke... My Grandfather said do you see those two guys going though the crowd ... Well take your wallet out of your front pocket and put it inside your coat pocket ... That guy talking and those other two with the buckets are here just for your cash ....