Captain's Quarters -

I think, as Mark Levin said, Bush pardoned Libby because he was a political prisoner. For you to assert that Bush did it to pander to his base has become typical of your reasoning lately. Additionally, as Andy McCarthy explains, the sentencing was excessive. It seems Captain, as if you're becoming an inside the Beltway type, bragging about being mentioned in a Dionne screed.

scooter libby made millions representing marc rich in his pardon process. why don't you mention that? i mean you take a swipe at "hillary's brothers" for profiting from represent pardon supplicants. why doesn't libby get that same criticism for representing rich? are you just hoping people will forget who represented the "vile" marc rich, who, contrary to your post, did come back to the u.s. and stand trial for certain of his crimes for which no pardon was granted.

> Notice the pattern: When the heat was on in the CIA leak case, Bush issued a strong pledge to fire anybody involved in leaking.

Bush's actual statement:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

There is no pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking. Only a desire to know who the leakers are, and a pledge to "take care" of persons who have violated law.

The idea that Bush pledged to "fire anyone involved in leaking" is pure liberal fantasy.

Re: english teacher at July 6, 2007 7:07 AM

english teacher,

You're best argument is that lawyer Scooter Libby represented a criminal seeking a pardon? Isn't that what lawyers do for clients?

The best argument that Libby didn't think he was in any danger, testifying before the grand jury, is that he didn't invoke his 5th-amendment right. If Libby had invoked his right, Fitzgerald would have nothing to work with, and nothing to charge.

As Andrew Mcarthy points out today in the Corner the sentencing guidlines for obstruction as supposed to be driven by the underlying crime being obstructed.
But of course since even Fitz admitted no crime occured it created a real problem for the judge. You can't obstruct justice when there was no crime for justice to be served on.
Yes, you can be caught lying but why lie if there was no motive to lie ? What was the motive for the lies ? Libby had not reason to lie thus no motive.
Fitz knew no crime had been committed and who had "leaked" the name of VP withing a week of the start of the investigation.

If a bank manager calls the police and says they were robbed, and the detectives interview the bank tellers and they all say that no robbery occured would it still be alright for a procescutor to force Capt. Ed to testify to a Grand Jury about a conversation he had with one of the bank tellers that same morning ?
And would it then be alright to try Capt Ed for perjury and obstruction because he testified that he told the her that her dress looked nice when the teller claims that he told her the dress looked ugly.

The best response to a question from a Grand Jury is, "I don't recall".

Actually E-teacher, CE wrote at length about the Rich-Libby connection in a recent post. I agree with you in that Marc Rich is a vile man; however, taking aim at CE for comments made or not made within this post represents a failure on your behalf to have followed this story as it has been written by CE over the past several days.

CQ is deserving of the recognition received on a national level over the past several months. Our host has a gift; the CQ community has a proven track record for high quality debate & information sharing...

Inside the beltway; I wouldn't wish that torture on my worst enemy...

I don't see Libby as a "poor innocent victim"; I see Libby as a pawn on a chessboard in a game that is still being played. Much more to come from this game.

But of course since even Fitz admitted no crime occured it created a real problem for the judge.

Fitzgerald didn't say no crime occurred, just that he couldn't prove one did occur. He even hinted in statements that he thought Libby may have been covering for Cheney.

"Also, Bill Clinton is ineligible for a presidential pardon.The Constitution excludes impeachment from the otherwise plenary powers of the President to pardon offenses against the United States."

I think you mean he couldn't have pardoned himself to avoid being impeached.

Ex-presidents are eligible to be pardoned for offenses - just ask Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.

No, a President cannot pardon any impeachment -- and Ford's pardon doesn't apply, because Nixon wasn't impeached. Ford's pardon kept Nixon from getting indicted after he left office, not from impeachment, which was mooted by Nixon's resignation.

Impeachment comes from the legislative branch, which is probably why the framers of the Constitution made the exception.

For an explanation of the Constitution's provision and rationale for presidential pardon power, see this:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons1.htm

I figure this story dies within a few weeks.

Bush isn't running for office and Bush doesn't have to worry too much about how well people like him-that figure is already about as low as it can go.

The GOP candidates running are unconnected to the administration and especially to this story. Kind of hard for the democratic candidates to hang it on their shoulders, and they would look petty trying to do so.

Hillary absolutely doesn't want to use it-she benefits most from the story dying now-because she is the one that can easily have the hypocrisy charge on her shoulders.

There isn't much political hay to make over this one, outside of a few news shows while the story is still being covered. Within a month, most people will have moved on to something else.

"Also, Bill Clinton is ineligible for a presidential pardon. The Constitution excludes impeachment from the otherwise plenary powers of the President to pardon offenses against the United States."

I'm afraid I agree with previous posters. Clinton was already impeached and found innocent. I believe double jeopardy would apply even to impeachments. While you can't pardon someone from an impeachment, that's beside the point in this case.

For Clinton, the question was whether there would be a pardon related to the criminal case of perjury against him. He publicly declined to seek one, but that was after getting a deal from the special prosecutor in which Clinton gave up his law license and paid a fine to avoid being indicted for perjury.

Oddly enough, I find the fines Clinton paid and the loss of his law license roughly parallel to Libby's penalties after commuting his sentence.

English Teacher:

You have inadvertently stumbled on to the truth behind the Libby case. Marc Rich, who bought a pardon from the Clintons, used Scooter Libby as the go between. You may not know that Patrick Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in the Rich case. When the Clintons pardoned Rich for cash Fitzgerald reportedly went ballistic.

The most likely scenario that led to the Libby indictment was that Fitzgerald saw an opportunity to get revenge for the Rich pardon. Why else would he make a deal with the real leaker, Richard Armitage, and go after dear old Scooter.

The collective psychosis of the leftwing Bush hating crowd blinds them to the underlying story. Fitzgerald promised a “Fitzmas” present of Dick Cheney and maybe President Bush and all he produced was Scooter Libby. You folks should be hopping mad over this and to be consistent claim the Fitzgerald was part of the coverup conspiracy.

The fact the escapes the deranged set is that if Bush wanted to “out” a covert CIA “operative” for political purpose all he had to do was sign an executive order revoking her status and then talking about her.. The CIA is part of the Executive branch and Plame worked for him. The President has ultimate declassification authority. There was no conspiracy to out Plame. It was the result of Armitage’s big mouth. Once he put it on the table to the press she became fair game by all previously know inside the beltway rules.

Strick,

There is no court or trial or process that has EVER found anyone innocent of anything. There are only three possible outcomes logically available from a trial; a.) guilty as charged if the prosecution has been more successful than the defense, b.) no decision if a jury finds itself hopelessly deadlocked or if court officers have tainted the trial to the point of mistrial, or c.) not guilty if the prosecution has been less successful than the defense. No one is ever declared innocent!

Since it is logically impossible to prove a negative, innocence is not, and cannot ever be, at issue.

But its always interesting to watch advocates declare their darling proved innocent by the absence of a guilty verdict, but steadfastly insist that their enemies remain guilty even in the absence of an indictment.

No, a President cannot pardon any impeachment...

Yes, but Clinton's perjury certainly could have been pardoned, and for that matter still could be. He IS eligible for a pardon.

I understand the point you're making though.

Its an interesting constitutional point, one that I've never thought a lot about. Take it out of the current context and it makes for an interesting mental exercise.

The scenario that comes to mind immediately is a case of a federal judge being impeached. A president cannot prevent that. Which prevents a path of potential abuse that anyone could figure ferret out with a few minutes of thought.

So you could have a crony federal judge acting unethically - say, dismissing charges, or tilting the in court playing field in favor of the administration - in actions against a corrupt administration - but the (corrupt) president couldn't shield the judge from removal by the Senate.

Once again the framers got it right.

If I were in Scooter's shoes the commutation would be exactly what I wanted. He still has an appeal, and from what I've read a very good appeal. As things stand now if he wins his appeal he gets his money back from the fine, but if he is jailed pending his appeal that time is gone forever.

When all is said and done I would much rather clear my name in court than by Presidential pardon.

I do not think you understand the reason for Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence: He did not want to see a loyal aide do jail time; he did want to see the appeals process go forward. Commuting the sentence accomplishes just that, and holds open the option for a full pardon, if needed.

Libby has a very good chance to win his appeal: the trial was manifestly unfair, since the judge did not let Libby present his defense, which was to impeach the key prosecution witness (Ruusert, as forgetful).

Also, no one seems to note the fact that Russert and the jury foreman were former neighbors and barbeque buddies. That, in itself, calls for a new trial.

Jerry wrote:

"English Teacher:

You have inadvertently stumbled on to the truth behind the Libby case. Marc Rich, who bought a pardon from the Clintons, used Scooter Libby as the go between. You may not know that Patrick Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in the Rich case. When the Clintons pardoned Rich for cash Fitzgerald reportedly went ballistic.

The most likely scenario that led to the Libby indictment was that Fitzgerald saw an opportunity to get revenge for the Rich pardon. Why else would he make a deal with the real leaker, Richard Armitage, and go after dear old Scooter.

The collective psychosis of the leftwing Bush hating crowd blinds them to the underlying story. Fitzgerald promised a “Fitzmas” present of Dick Cheney and maybe President Bush and all he produced was Scooter Libby. You folks should be hopping mad over this and to be consistent claim the Fitzgerald was part of the coverup conspiracy.

The fact the escapes the deranged set is that if Bush wanted to “out” a covert CIA “operative” for political purpose all he had to do was sign an executive order revoking her status and then talking about her.. The CIA is part of the Executive branch and Plame worked for him. The President has ultimate declassification authority. There was no conspiracy to out Plame. It was the result of Armitage’s big mouth. Once he put it on the table to the press she became fair game by all previously know inside the beltway rules.

Posted by: jerry at July 6, 2007 9:10 AM "

That's actually only the half of it, though I think it is a bit unfair to accuse Libby of being a go between for whatever illicit deal Bill Clinton and Mrs. Rich may have worked out "in private". Even crooks mostly hire honest defense lawyers. Of all the reporters Fitzgerald COULD have chosen to make an example of, he just HAPPENS to pick Judith Miller, who he had previously accused of warning a suspect?

One example MIGHT be a coincidence, not TWO. I think this whole case is less about politics than it is about a rogue prosecutor taking advantage of the situation in order to get even.

Sense of consistency? How about the fact that no crime occurred and Fitzgerald's investigation was little more than a kangaroo court?

Libby never should have been forced to testify to a kangaroo court grand jury run by a loose-cannon independent prosecutor who admitted that no crime had been committed early on but said he'd keep on investigating anyway for, more or less, the hell of it.

Bush should have given Libby a full pardon and extended the finger to people like E.J. Dionne. Valerie Plame wasn't a secret agent. Her identity wasn't protected. She revealed her own identity publicly many times long before Armitage slipped her name to Novak. This whole thing is damn ridiculous and as usual our President, instead of calling it like it is, made a half-measure in an attempt to appease everyone and ended up appeasing almost no one (as usual).

Tom Shipley characterized what Fitgerald wrote:
Fitzgerald didn't say no crime occurred, just that he couldn't prove one did occur. He even hinted in statements that he thought Libby may have been covering for Cheney.
Ah, he hinted that Libby may have been covering for Cheney. So when he can't prove something in a court of law, and doesn't prove any such thing he can still hint that a crime may have a occurred. Isn't it his job to prosecute crimes that did occur? Sorry but Hints and allegations are just that. If he has a case against the vice president then why doens't he bring it. In fact bring a case against ANYBODY for the underlying crime. Bring it against Rove, bring it agaisnt Libby, bring it against Wilson, bring it against Armitage. How's about prosecuting somebody for leaking of an undercover agents identitiy? If he had a case to bring, he would have brought it. Since he doesn't have a case to bring he engaged in "hints and allegations". And people like Tom Shipley then use those hints and allegations to suggest that actual crimes occured.
From day one fitz knew that the leaker in this case was Armitage and he further determined that no crime occured.Hence the lack of charges.

If everyone is so sure of themselves that a crime wasn't committed for Mr. Libby to lie about his knowledge of that crime, then why hasn't anyone suggested prosecuting Mr. Fitzgerald for misconduct? Who appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to the case? If it didn't merit investigation then why did one occur?

I have to respect Ed’s analysis. It is clear and thoughtful. I only take issue with Ed’s claim that Fitzgerald apparently agrees that no “outing a covert CIA agent” conspiracy existed. Just because he could not make a case provable in court does not mean that the outing wasn’t intentional, or that Fitzgerald believes this to be the case. Potentially, Libby could have more than just perjured himself, he could have concealed evidence that prevented Fitzgerald from bringing the “underlying crime” to trial.

For you GOE troops who may not get to the other side of the fence much, check out what Professor Dershowitz had to say over at the Huff Po.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/playing-politics-with-lib_b_54772.html

I don't agree with Alan Dershowitz on many issues but he is a man who always applies his principles across the ideological spectrum. I give him the traditional three cheers that a true defender of the Constitution deserves.

It proves that you can a liberal without succumbing to the collective psychosis of the mainstream left which dominates the Democratic Party today. That means you Bayam, Monkei, English Teacher et. al.

That same poll also shows that a majority of Americans, you know, citizens with complaint against the governement and the right of redress, favor impeaching the VP.

From Matthew Yglesias:

"The bottom line is that on one theory -- Libby broke the law to spare his superiors embarrassing revelations of their lawbreaking, and is being pardoned by those same superiors to help perpetuate the cover-up of their embarrassing lawbreaking -- Libby deserves to go to jail and Bush has seriously abused his power by pardoning Libby. On Nyhan's alternative theory -- Libby broke the law to spare his superiors embarrassing revelations of their embarrassing non-criminal conduct, and is being pardoned by those same superiors to help perpetuate the cover-up of their embarrassing non-criminal conduct -- Libby also deserves to go to hail and Bush has also seriously abused his power by pardoning Libby."

To quote Baby Herman - "I tell ya Valiant, the whole thing stinks like yesterday's diapers."

Sorry for no links, apparently the spam filter here has been set to delay any post with a link.

JR,

He said this in response to people like you who think thebecause Armitage was ONE of Novak's sources that the investigation should have ended.

The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President."

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "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.

Had the Federal Judge allowd Mr. Libby to remain out of jail while the appeal of his conviction made its way through the courts In all probability President Bush would not have acted as he did, Even Senator Clinton spoke out strongly against jailing those convicted of non-violent crimes only days before before she berated President Bush and demanded that Mr. Libby should have been required to serve jail time. Another democrat flip-flopper.

And in regards to the original post i responded to, Fitzgerald never said no underlying crime was committed. He said Libby's obstruction made it impossible to determine if that crime was committed.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/29/BL2007052901024.html

This whole thing just shows Bush as very hypocritical. He's tough on crime when it's someone he doesn't know (see the Justice Department's recommendation in the Rita obstruction case & Texas' execution record when he was governor), but when it's someone he knows and works with, he's flip-flops and shows leniency when it comes to sentencing.

It was amusing to see Froomkin embarrass himself today.

"...there is an ethical chasm between Clinton's pardons -- unseemly as they were -- and Bush's decision to grant clemency..."

But he was dead right about that. The ethical chasm is definted by the fact that Scooter Libby never deserved the sentence he got, because he never should have been prosecuted in the first place.

Clinton on the other hand dished out pardons for money, for favors, for power, and because he could. Attacking Bush's commutation of a man caught in a trap is nothing, NOTHING, like the wholesale prostitution of the clemency powers that Clinton used for Marc Rich or his own former Cabinet member, Henry Cisneros.

The chasm is deep indeed. Hillary is trying to fill it with her own hypocrisy, and the liberal media mavens like Froomkin are more than happy to keep shoveling.

And since this a lose-lose proposition for both Hillary AND Al Gore, this story will vanish and quickly.

Count on it.

Tom,
if its impossible for Fitzgerald to determine whether a crime occured, its pretty disingenuos for you to be citing with absolute certainty that a crime did occur and say that Rove and others should be in jail or are guilty.

Even where we know with absolute certainty who a leaker is, for example Armitage who is the non partisan gunslinger in NOvak's column, we know a crime still didn't occur because obviously Fitzgerald didn't charge him with one when his involvement is clearly known.

JR,

I've never said Rove, Libby and Armitage are guilty of violating the 1982 statute of knowingly outing a covert CIA agent.

What I have said is that they are guilty of providing classified information to those not authorized to receive it, resulting in the outing of a covert CIA agent (one working on the very issue we went to war over).

First off, this breaks their confidentiality agreement. Secondly, Bush initially said that if anyone in his adimistration leaked classified information, they would be dealt with appropriately. Rove is the only one left at the White House, and the president has taken no action against him.

Tom Shipley:

The statements of Fitzgerald that you cited at 2:26 pm have a lot of "may" remarks and speculations not proven in court: "he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President" ; "some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated"; "his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President."

To me, those innuendos taint Fitzgerald's prosecution. All of the administration witnesses were told not to plead the Fifth Amendment and to cooperate. Fitzgerald found no evidence to pursue indictments against Cheney or Rove even after repeated questioning. He had no evidence of a grand conspiracy.

I found it ironic that the jury still did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt after eight or nine days of deliberation. Someone in that jury pool must have had questions about whether the prosecution had made its case.

Well, there you go ... GWB does what he thinks is right and does not care what you or anyone else thinks.

He's done this on NCLB, on Immigration, on Iraq, on Stem Cells, and now the Libby Commutation.

Welcome to GWB.

Oh wait. You indicated that the White House intended that the commutation have a certain effect. What evidence can you cite that this was the expectation?

My guess is that the White House pretty much expected that what is happening would happen. And, again, did what they think is right.

There was no "calming effect" hoped for; the commutation of Libby's sentence is payback for Libby's having taken the heat for the White House's involvement in the Plame leak, and it takes leverage away from Fitzgerald in trying to get testimony from Libby. This predictably caused no small amount of outrage, but Bush obviously felt it was worth it.

.. it takes leverage away from Fitzgerald in trying to get testimony from Libby

Fitzgerald is not trying to get testimony from Libby. I guess some people are still hoping for Fitzmas. It's over, folks. Try to "Move On".

American Research Group polls are generally biased in a way supporting Democrats and liberal causes. I wouldn't trust this one.

I have a suggestion. Let's all hold a reunion in two months time and see if anyone remembers this.

Evidently John Conyers is worried we will forget. He wants another investigation. “We’re trying to examine the use and misuse of the clemency power and the commutation power and we’ll be examining it of all presidents because that’s the only way we can determine whether they’ve been used properly and whether there should be changes considered,” Conyers said.

Questions: Has Conyers ever read the Constitution? When Conyers says "we’ll be examining it of all presidents" does he mean ALL as in EVERY SINGLE ONE, or ALL as in all named George W. Bush? I have a sneaking feeling that a certain person named Clinton will be getting hold of Conyers and telling him to investigate something else.

Tom Shipley

What I have said is that they are guilty of providing classified information to those not authorized to receive it

Then you are wrong to say this. Maybe YOU think they are guilty of this, but they are not guilty of it in any legal sense. They were not charged or tried on these grounds. Rove and Armitage were not charged with anything. And even Libby was not charged with what you accuse him of.

A truly partisan prosecutor would, at this point, be intervening in the civil suit Wilson and Plame have brought, and asking to have the investigation widened into why Cheney refuses to explain how he handles classified information.

A truly partisan investigation team would be leaking the sordid details of Cheney, Rove, and everybody else's testimony to the press, like Starr's office did. Instead, there's nada from Fitzgerald or anybody on his team, except when the Decider chose to negate virtually everything he accomplished in two years of work.

Ed is partially right about the short span this is going to have in the limelight: come November, 2008, people will have forgotten all the details, and nobody will remember all the convoluted and downright byzantine explanations and justifications I've read here for why all this was such a miscarriage of justice. Nobody will remember all the finely-parsed reasoning for why this is all perfectly legal, and nobody will remember the carefully weasel-worded statement from Bush or the incredible performance from Tony Snow yesterday.

What they will remember is that President Bush effectively pardoned a member of his inner circle in an affront to the principle of "equality before the law".

Democrats may understand that politics is a game, and Republicans may excuse Bush's questionable actions as "being for a greater good", and authoritarian followers may just blindly follow their leaders like always, but independent-minded people really get upset when blatant cronyism is displayed.

the fly-man says:

"For you GOE troops who may not get to the other side of the fence much, check out what Professor Dershowitz had to say over at the Huff Po.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/playing-politics-with-lib_b_54772.html"

Dersho concludes with this:

"The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the President's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the President acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence. "

BTW be sure to read some of the insane comments following Alan's piece. Too much!

By the way, I agree with one of the other posters here-I wouldn't put too much faith in ONE poll, especially a poll from ARG.

Then you are wrong to say this.

Uh, no, not really. You don't have to be charged with a crime to be guilty of something. The evidence gathered during Fitzgerald's investigation and shown through the media and Libby's trial show that Rove, Armitage and Libby all disclosed classified information to reporters that led to the outing of a CIA agent. All three are guilty of this. Libby and Armitage are gone from the white house. Rove is still there and has not been punished despite breaking his confientiality agreement and despite the statement by the president that anyone in his administration found to leak classified information would be dealt with appropriately.

Dershowitz jumped the shark for me when he defended OJ. And for him to say the quote posted here:

""The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it."

is ridiculous when you look at federal sentencing guidelines. As others have written, Bush's commutation was an early Christmas present to defense attorneys.

Joe Wilson said:

"You don't have to be charged with a crime to be guilty of something. "

LOL! I have a law degree from Moe Howard University Law School too.

I assume this hilarious statement of yours also applies to people like Bill Clinton?

I don't think any of the people complaining actually payed attention to the trial. We had basically no crime, a very liberal judge who would not let the defense present evidence and a difference between the memory of Tim Russert and Libby on an 18 month old conversation (the rest of the charges were window dressing). It should have been a full pardon.

Del,

It applies to anyone guilty of a wrongdoing. The definition of the word "guilty" does not limit it to that of a court of law.

And you can call me anything you like, but my name is Tom.

a very liberal judge

Dave, who's the one not paying attention?:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie Walton one of his first choices for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences.

And Walton didn't disappoint, proving to be exactly the kind of no-nonsense judge Bush was looking for.

Until now.

When erasing former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 21/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, Bush said Walton was being harsh.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-judge_wedjul04,1,4436126.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Tom

My point was that everything in this case hung on the Libby/Russert conversation. If I had to pick I would tend to believe Libby. However, I think that bad memory is the cause. I would hate to have to recall in detail a telephone conversation that old. I couldn't do it and neither could you.

Tom Shipely either didn't read the third comment to this post or he is a troll.

Bush said "And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

The idea that Plame's name was leaked to punish her husband is liberal victim-status fantasy. Her relationship to Wilson was leaked simply to discredit him and his trip.

Tom "Valerie Plame" Shipley said:

"It applies to anyone guilty of a wrongdoing. The definition of the word "guilty" does not limit it to that of a court of law."

Thanks for not answering my question.

Saddam Hussein, and many other dictators-all of whom the Left supported thru history-were all able to find plenty of people "guilty" without being charged of a crime. Does the term "Holocaust" ring a bell?

I've often thought that libs shouldn't be allowed to sit on juries (or vote... or breed). Tom Shipley's comment about "you don't have to be charged with a crime to be guilty of something" demonstrates my point.

THE SCENE: A federal courtroom. The jury is returning after a lengthy deliberation. A man's life hangs in the balance. The tension in the air is palpable.

JUDGE: Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict?

FOREMAN (Tom Shipley): We have, your honor.

(Bailiff takes the written jury decision and hands it to the judge. The judge looks at it, clearly perplexed.)

JUDGE: It says here that, "He's guilty of something."

FOREMAN: That's right, your honor.

JUDGE (bewildered): Um, exactly WHICH charge or charges do you find him guilty of?

FOREMAN: We weren't really sure. But we know he's guilty of something.

Hey! Maybe Shipley was on the Libby jury!

Tom Shipley said

"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-judge_wedjul04,1,4436126.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed"

Hahaha, an AP story, nice try. They've been busted so many times in the past for political bias in their "reporting" that it's not funny any more. Check www.newsbusters.org for numerous examples of their bias.

While you're there, note that Newsbusters has no need for a correction page, unlike their counterparts at "Media Matters"

As usual, the company/organization which conducted the poll [that CE referenced] vastly over-sampled Democrats and Independents, an under-sampled Republicans.

What most pollsters -don't- give is the actual demographics of those registered voters who were polled. Why no one is requiring that of them confounds me, since it would be very telling if the majority of the polled registered voters were from a general region, such as the Northeast states, which largely trend to the liberal side of politics.

What also disturbs me is the frequent abuse of polling in order to create controversy where none exists, or exists at such a low level as not to be newsworthy.

Where are the "accountability" standards for pollsters, anyway? Or for the MainStreamMedia?

If this continues, I can see a public revolt which could result in "full disclosure" legislation requiring the MSM to disclose all facts relevant to a story being reported, and disclose requirements that pollsters include in their reports the actual demographics concerning the people polled for each survey.

Since when do we abide by journalists and pollsters creating and/or interpreting news?

My point was that everything in this case hung on the Libby/Russert conversation.

This is wrong too. Three members of the white house staff testified that they had conversations with Libby about Plame and her work at the CIA prior to Libby’s conversation with Russert.

So not only did Russert refute Libby’s story that he heard about Plame from him, but three members of the White House staff refuted it as well. It wasn’t just a matter of Libby said/Russert said.

Saddam Hussein, and many other dictators-all of whom the Left supported thru history-were all able to find plenty of people "guilty" without being charged of a crime. Does the term "Holocaust" ring a bell?

Del, Matt Cooper of time has a time-stamped email that summarizes a conversation he had with Rove prior to the Novak column, In it, he writes that Rove told him that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

Novak has testified that Rove confirmed that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

Both men’s testimony show that Rove is guilty of passing on classified information to reporters (Plame’s status with the CIA was classified). Based on the evidence that is out there, Rove is guilty of this. Again, you don’t have to be found guilty in a court of law to be guilty of something. To be guilty of something to be shown that you did something wrong. Disclosing the classified ID of a covert CIA agent to reporters, and thus outing her, is wrong. Evidence turned up in Fitzgerald’s investigation showed Rove did this.

Now, if you want to call me different names and equate my line of thinking to those who exterminated Jews, that’s your right. But, you're wrong.

I say again..has anyone every seen Tom Shipley and Joe Wilson in the same room at the same time?

Give it up, Tom, you really should be billing the real Joe and Val for your time defending them.

I'm just curious-why are you hitching your star to a Government Diplomat and a CIA agent?

After all, "progressives" like yourself have trashed and mistrusted the CIA, and all other Government intelligence agencies, for decades.

Yet suddenly you side with an agent from the hated CIA?

TOO FUNNY

Some day, I expect, what will spill out is that Valerie had her hands on the cash box. It was called "covert" because the funds were a secret. And, that's how she financed, herself. And, her husband. Above her pay grade. It's also how she got to send her husband off on a hunt for green tea and yellowcake, in Niger.

Following the 2000 election, the Bonkeys decided to attack Bush. They were going to give him a lousy four years. When 9/11 happened. And, lots of Americans came together, then.

By the time we reached 2004, it was apparent the Bonkeys weren't going to field a candidate people could embrace. We, got, instead, the gigolo.

It doesn't get better for the Bonkeys. But they have used their perches in congress to make mayhem at the President's life. And, it has blowback.

We just don't know, yet, the true power of this blowback.

Even though the old media is in a shambles.

While the GOP has enough candidates interested in become president, that we're getting to meaningful debates. And, a much stronger Internet that does cover the news.

As a matter of fact, everything I just learned about London and Glasgow, I picked up on the Net.

And, in time? We'll also learn a lot more about "HOW" Fitz pulled off his scam. He sure scared a lot of people into silence! Especially some who earn their livings being on the air! I guess his one advantage? The people who read the news into the cameras are such brainless twits they don't even know what the story's about, when they're part of it! How can you beat that?

Tom,
So you're acknowledging that there was no real crime involved here, you're just mad that Rove and others violated their confidentiality agreement ? That's the big grand conspiracy that's occupied your side for the last few years? That requires a special councel jailing Judith Miller for a hundred days and sending Libby to jail for two years?

Funny I don't remember anyone on the left get pissed off about the whistleblowers who revealed details of various programs to the NYTimes and others because they violated their confidentiality agreements. Ah yes, they are whistleblowers, I forgot. Dont remember for any calls for any investigations or special prosecutions either. Hey, if you want to call for the jailing of Times Reporters for speaking to their sources and violating their confidentiality agreements in leaking the NSA details I'm with ya. I''m sure that outrage is forthcoming from you or some lefty blog somewhere, right Tom?

It's ok we'll wait.

"Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "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."

How?

Why wouldn't the appelate panel let Libbey stay out until his appeals were heard.

Ed said:

Dionne complains that Bush never consulted the DoJ on the commutation, but Clinton rejected the advice of the DoJ on the Rich pardon.

Response:

So Clinton did consult DOJ? But rejecting their advice answers to the question of GWB not having consulted the DOJ? Make this make sense. It was okay for Bush not to consult DOJ, but bad for Clinton to consult them and reject their advice?

Ed said:

but the Rich pardon allowed a fugitive with dozens of counts of tax fraud and evasion -- and a man who had traded illegally with Ayatollah Khomeini, an enemy of the US -- to escape trial altogether, not coincidentally after his wife gave the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bill's presidential library. Also not coincidentally, Hillary's brothers made tens of thousands of dollars representing successful pardon applicants,

Response:

Gosh, Ed, english teacher, who capitalizes like e.e. cummings, wonders if there's really a problem with your smear about the brothers Rodham when they did the same thing as Libby, represent a slime for money in hopes of a pardon (and probably more money). If it was somehow unethical and smarmy of Rodhams, what does that say about Libby?

But more to the point about whether we'll be hearing about this in '08, probably not until whoever is elected starts pardoning, giving clemency, and commuting sentences, just as we hadn't heard Rich's name until Libby's sentence was commuted.

But it is funny that you describe Rich as someone who "had traded illegally with Ayatollah Khomeini, an enemy of the US," because I don't recall hearing conservatives complain about Bush Sr.'s pardons of the Iran-Contra criminals (and forgive me all you commentators; I'm not a lawyer, so I only use the term criminals to mean people who were involved in something illegal like delivering arms to America's enemy's--sort of like Rich, escaping trial, and not in the TECHNICAL sense of somebody actually convicted their crimes).

So many conservatives think people objected to the illegal war President Reagan funded against a democratically elected government (gosh, is Ortega president of Nicaragua again?), and somehow complicit in the Sandinista's socialism. But the real stench of filth emanating from that wasn't just where the money ended, but where it started, in illegal and despicable dealings with a government that held Americans hostage in our embassy, which is legally on our soil. I've never understood why Reagan is such a hero to conservatives when he defended (if not directed) that, nor can I understand why Elliot Abrams is still being supported by American taxpayers if he's not wearing an orange jumpsuit.

I assumed, Ed, that when you said "had traded illegally with Ayatollah Khomeini, an enemy of the US," you meant that as a criticism. Gosh, pardoning somebody who would do that, how would you characterize someone who would pardon such a person?

It certainly is the case that commutations, clemency, and pardons are given to criminals, or at least people convicted of crimes. But it's also the case that some criminals escape conviction.

I don't think the president commuted Libby's prison sentence as a sop to his base--he knew that wouldn't satisfy them. The reason some consider that the president is circumventing the possibility of Libby's turning state's evidence when he's been pleading innocent all this time is that so many of us actually change our attitudes when faced directly with prison time, not just the trial and conviction. Walking into those doors and knowing you won't walk out for years is fundamentally different from the thinking one does prior to that time. I'm not sure I buy that Scooter would rat out his team when finally faced with that prospect, but we'll certainly never know now.

As for Fitzgerald being the last "Special Prosecutor," he wasn't appointed under the law that elapse that gave Republicans so much fun that Kenneth Starr was empowered by. He was appointed because all the Washington crowd had to recuse themselves. He's never been a "Special Prosecutor," he was just delegated the task of prosecuting from outside the DOJ headquarters. Unlike Starr, the President could have fired Fitzgerald.

As for the underlying crime, I'm with Shipley. I don't buy that there wasn't one just because no one was prosecuted or convicted. The investigation turned up leakers (plural). But Shipley and all those wacky liberals must have inferred something wildly wrong when they heard the president say he'd "take care of" whoever leaked that information. It's clear the president is taking care of Scooter, and he's certainly taking care of Rove. Maybe Armitage declined to be taken care of.

Oh, Captain....kind words from Dionne are nothing to be proud about.

And...it was a flop.? 95% of Americans don't know who Scooter Libby is and got biased and sloppy reporting.

I think it is only fair that the political prosecution victim Libby serve a sentence similar to Clinton and Berger.

From Powerline:

E.J. Dionne announces that he's enraged that President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's jail sentence. Last week Dionne was enraged about the Supreme Court's ruling that the McCain-Feingold Act is unconstitutional when applied to bar an ad asking folks to urge their Senator not to filibuster judicial appointments. As I noted here, Dionne's column contained no legal analysis and betrayed no understanding of the decision that had him so worked up.

Similarly, Dionne's latest outpouring of anger shows no understanding of clemency issues. Dionne tries to apply sentencing law to the commutation of Libby's sentence. Thus, he writes that Bush's action "left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads." But sentencing law only applies when one is imposing a sentence; the sentencing guidelines have no applicability when the question is commuting a sentence. Dionne's argument is a bit like complaining that Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich over tax evasion charges had tax law experts scratching their heads, or that Carter's pardon of draft dodgers showed an inadequate understanding of the selective service laws.

As part of his statement on clemency for Libby, Bush did state that the sentence was excessive. But he made it clear that other factors were at play (he mentioned Libby's public service and the unusual nature of the prosecution). Bush never said that absent these other factors he would have commuted the entire jail sentence. (According to Andy McCarthy, though, there's a case to be made under the sentencing guidelines for sentencing Libby only to probation).

Having failed coherently to analyze the merits, Dionne proceeds to drink the Kool-Aid of conspiracy theory. He cites approvingly the suggestion of left-wing blogs that, by not pardoning Dionne, Bush avoided the prospect of Libby testifying before Congress at this time. He also says that, by commuting the sentence, Bush removes the incentive for Libby to give the prosecutors new information.

As to the former point, Bush's action merely delays any congressional appearance by Libby until his appeal is decided, which likely will occur next year. That's a more advantageous time for the Democrats, whose interests are always Dionne's paramount concern.

As to the latter point, whatever incentive Libby might have had to "help" the prosecutors vanished a while ago. In any case, nothing supports Dionne's assumption that he had anything he honestly could offer them. Nothing, that is, other than Dionne's partisan-based outrage.

As for the underlying crime, I'm with Shipley. I don't buy that there wasn't one just because no one was prosecuted or convicted. The investigation turned up leakers (plural). But Shipley and all those wacky liberals must have inferred something wildly wrong when they heard the president say he'd "take care of" whoever leaked that information. It's clear the president is taking care of Scooter, and he's certainly taking care of Rove. Maybe Armitage declined to be taken care of.
Posted by: kindaskeptical at July 7, 2007 5:37 AM

You're right about one thing kindaskeptical; you and Shipley are in the same bed together; not real sure that is something one would want to share over the internet; oh well, too late now...

Keemo, Keemo, Keemo,

The Keemster says:

But he made it clear that other factors were at play (he mentioned Libby's public service and the unusual nature of the prosecution). Bush never said that absent these other factors he would have commuted the entire jail sentence.

Response:

The president's statement cites "significant commentary and debate," reciting points made on both sides. However, when he says he has made his own evaluation, he MAKES NO MENTION of anything unusual about the nature of the prosecution, and goes out of his way to praise the diligence of U.S. Attorney Fitzpatrick, and his respect for the jury's verdict. Sorry, Keemo, "unusual nature of the prosecution" not a factor. Period.

Moreover, hypocrite that he is, the very information that he says he took into account, Libby's public service, career, family, reputation, are the very things he's directed his DOJ to press for laws to prevent judges from taking into account when sentencing. He's pressing for the ONLY information to be taken into account in sentencing is what the guidelines dictate. Not public service, family, reputation, law degree, number of puppies rescued, or even contributions to the RNC.

And I'm sure you know of the recent case he directed his Solicitor General to argue that the 33 month sentence for perjury and obstruction in U.S. v Rita, in which Victor Rita lied about buying a machine gun, a twenty-four year Marine veteran with tours of both Vietnam and Desert Storm, horrible health, but a sentence within the federal guidelines. Either these things should be taken into account in sentencing or not. Either individual circumstances matter or they don't. The president has ordered his DOJ to enforce no exceptions, but he made a big one in the case of Libby.

The parole board in Libby's case recommended a substantially shorter sentence than the judge meted out, but THEY STILL RECOMMENDED JAIL TIME. I don't really know if Libby should be incarcerated for these lies and obstruction of justice; but I do know that pretty much anyone else would be. And I do know that if it were up to the president, everyone else would be.

The president belied his own DOJ rules for commutations, which stipulate that one's appeals must be exhausted, and the criminal's time substantially served. And that the criminal EXPRESS REMORSE. As Tony Snow points out, the president wants to use pardons and commutations to support the legal system, so these factors are very important to him. No one but a Bush crony will have gotten a commutation from this prez without serving time. No one.

Any incentive for Libby to "help" prosecutors vanished this week with the stroke of the President's pen, which he probably sent to Scooter as a souvenir.

Yep, Shipley seems to be kinda skeptical, too.

BTW, Dionne is a partisan, Keemo, but he's also a patriot. Give him credit for that.

But sentencing law only applies when one is imposing a sentence; the sentencing guidelines have no applicability when the question is commuting a sentence.

True, but the reason sentencing experts are scratching their heads is that Bush specifically cited a "too harsh" (or some iteration of that sentiment) sentance as a main reason he commutted it.

Bush appointed this judge specifically because he was a tough sentencer (as Cap'n Ed has pointed out already). The justice department recommended a slightly longer sentence in a case very similar to Libby's (Rita), and the Supreme Court upheld that sentence. Now Bush is commutting Libby's sentence because it's too harsh? It makes no sense, unless it's the case that Bush tough stance on sentencing weakens when he actually knows the person.

So you're acknowledging that there was no real crime involved here, you're just mad that Rove and others violated their confidentiality agreement?

Well, no, because if you read what I posted above, Fitzgerald said the Libby's obstruction made it impossible to determine whether that crime occurred. That's why his lying is such a big deal. And why the Bush-appointed judge sentenced him as he did.

And further more, I'm of the opinion that outing (intentionally or unintentionally) a covert agent who worked on the exact issue this country went to war over is a big deal.

At the very least, they were reckless in this unnecessary attack. Wilson never claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger, but that CIA officials asked him to go because of questions raised by Cheney. Even if Plame did recommend him (which I don't think she did), Wilson corrected stated who asked him to go in his op-ed (the CIA).

There was no need to correct the record. There was no need for Wilson's wife to be IDed as a CIA agent. These guys did do this and they outed her.

Bush said, in regards to this case, that any leaker of classified information would be dealt with apporpriately. Rove has been shown to be one of the leakers, yet no action has been taken against him.

Apparently Bush feels it's appropriate to serve no jail time for the crime of perjury and the appropriate action against someone who leaks classified information that outs a covert CIA operative is no action.

tom great comments; thanks for posting them. between you and me, some of the kids here seem to be spouting off about poor libby with very little knowledge of what actually happened. but that's just my opinion.

perhaps you can answer a question for me. i see the theory as being that cheney and bush told scooter and rove to spread the word that wilson's wife got him the trip and she work's for the cia. but, bush and cheney didn't tell karl and scooter that valerie was covert. so fitz can't prove that they knowingly disclosed her identity. of course, cheney and bush would have known full well the impact of what they were doing, and the effect on brewster jennings. that's why no indictment for the underlying crime, because the criminal disclosure was by cheney/bush to libby/rove, not libby/rove to cooper/miller/novak etc. and fitz just doesn't have the physical evidence for that charge like he did on the perjury. so i'm asking if it's possible that rove/libby said "she works at the cia" but actually were unaware of her noc status. in other words, dupe/s who got a pardon.

I'm glad the President questions the motivations of an unctuous prosecutor who kept on looking for the person who "leaked" Plame's name after Richard "Scot free" Armitage had already admitted he was the source of the leak. Loopy Judge Walton's bloviations before passing sentence serve as an unpleasant reminder that judges are firstly politicians. If one is going to lock up Libby on the basis of what Timmy Russert claims one had best lock up Timmy Russert on the basis of what Scooter Libby has said.

Prosecutor Fitzfong has revealed that he shares much in common with OJ still looking for the "real killer."

English Teacher,

Honestly, I don't know. All I know is evidence shows that Cheney initiated the leaks with a note on the op-ed asking if CIA agents usually send husbands on junkets.

Whether or not he, Armitage, Rove Libby or anyone else knew she was covert or not, we'll probably never know. But they did out a covert CIA agent, which is at best reckless.

LOL. They're still trying to call Plame "covert."! Are the dopers over at NPR still making that claim?

I'm sure Rove could care less about knowing or having known about another beltway socialite having delusions she's 007. The importance which the usual Liberal suspects ascribe to themselves would be humorous were it not so much like the excrement Cindy Sheehan left in the ditch near Crawford, Texas.

If there was a reckless crime then reckless Armitage would be doing time with, say, Sandy Berger or John Deutsch. It speaks volumes that some are still trying to blame Rove for Armitage's doings. They wanted Rove so bad for something, anything, they're willing to screw Libby over nothing.

Viking,

She was covert. Fitzgerald's court filings show that CIA records of Plames employment history reveal she traveled overseas 7 times since 2002 on CIA business under either official or non-offical cover. They also show the CIA was taking steps to conceal her employment with the agency and that her employment status was classified.

She was covert.

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

"Either or" is sorta like Clinton's "is."

I'm sure if MSNBC says it it must be true. In any case....

Roll the James Bond theme!

Da da la la da, da da da da da la da, da da.

So I presume you then NOW agree that Armitage should be in jail and Libby should be at home watching Wimbledon? You've just told us Armitage committed the crime!

Keep in mind you're still under oath and if you disagree with Tim Russert I'll have to send you to the big house and I doubt your sentence will be commuted.

Thanks for playing!

Viking,

Armitage, Rove and Libby all gave classified information that IDed a covert CIA agent to people not authorized to receive that information. All three men potentially committed the crime the investigation was asked to look into. Fitzgerald said that because of Libby's obstruction, he was unable to determine whether this crime took place.

Libby's perjury did not hinge on a he said/russert said sort of thing. Three members of the Bush White House testified that they spoke with Libby about Plame working for the CIA prior to Libby's conversation with Russert in which he claims he first heard about Plame.

And that was about the lamest use of a media bias crutch I've ever seen. MSNBC merely is hosting PDF's of official US court documents. They aren't saying anything.

You seem to be forgetting Fitzgerald's investigation assignment whereby the instant Armitage revealed to Fitzgerald that he (Armitage) was the, er, gossip, in this whole circus that the investigation of Rove, Libby, pedestrians on the street, strangers in alleys etc. should have stopped. We know Armitage is guilty by admission. Unless Libby was interrupting Armitage's confession then blaming Libby is largely specious.

At that point in the "investigation" Armitage should have been indicted (or not) and Fitzgerald should have gone home and saved taxpayers lots of money. At the expense of Fitzgerald's ego or monetary / political aspirations / future book deals, of course.

How the hype all got past a gossip columnist level is testament to the mentality which may still believe a vast conspiracy soiled Monica's blue dress. It all depends on how desperate a witch hunt is to find some witches.

Have a lovely weekend. If possible.

Viking,

ALL THREE MEN leaked Plame's ID. Libby and Armitage spoke with Miller and Novak respectively on the same day. Novak just happened to publish a story. But that's beside the point. All three men could have committed this crime because all three men were found to have passed along classified information that led to an outing of a CIA agent.

So, Fitzgerald was right in investigating whether Libby Rove and Armitage KNOWINGLY outed a covert agent. During the course of that investigation, Libby lied and obstructed. And he was sent to jail, until Bush stepped in. The legal system worked as it should have in this case. They even followed the Bush administration's strict sentencing guidlines that Bush said were too harsh.

Careful Tom. you're turning into Lawrence Walsh.

"Could have" simply doesn't cut it. Nor does a presumption that something has been done "knowingly" without evidence of that fact. Would the system have "worked" had you disagreed with the jury outcome? No need to answer lest you sound like Fitzgerald and Walton after the commutation stole their biscuit.

Viking,

The investigation had to keep going because there was the possibility that three men broke this law. If there was no possibility, then no investigation. But since evidence showed that all three men leaked classified information, the investigation had to continue to see if they knew she was covert when they leaked her identity.

That's why the claim that the investigation should have ended when the found out the Armitage was ONE of Novak's source (Rove was the other) is wrong. The investigation was NEVER to find out who leaked Plame's name to Novak. That's a large component, for sure, but the investigation was to find out if the section 1982 statute protecting the identity of covert CIA agents was violated. Finding out that Armitage was ONE of Novak's sources helps that investigation, but is in no way an end point of that investigation.

Is that too hard for you to understand?

And I never presumed anyone knew Plame was covert. In fact, if you see my response to English Teacher, you'll see I say that I don't know if they did or not.

Tom wrote:
Honestly, I don't know. All I know is evidence shows that Cheney initiated the leaks with a note on the op-ed asking if CIA agents usually send husbands on junkets.
That's a good question. Do they usually send their husbands on junkets? Why is it wrong to question how and why Wilson was sent in the first place? I note that when Armtitage was blabbing with Woodward, (who never actually wrote about it, thus didn't out an agent) he asked the same question. Why was Joe Wilson of all people sent?
If Joe Wilson has an animus towards Bush, doesn't work at the CIA, is sent by his wife, doesn't actually look at the intelligence that the Brits used, nor travel to either the Congo or the Sudan, doens't have to himself sign a confidentiality agreement, conveniently, is it out of bounds to in fact question the motivatiions of the whisteblower?

Do you think the CIA would have sent Joe Wilson to the Congo if they knew he was going to start leaking to the Nations David Corn and then publish an op ed in the NYT? You have to wonder, based on the lack of confidentiality agreement that perhaps this was planned all along as an attack on the administration, which certainly an administration should have a right to refute. If though Wilson leaked on his own, if he goes so far as to attempt to prove the president a liar does the administration have the right to actuallly look at how he was sent, who sent him, was what he found accurate? Isn't it, then, highly irresponsible of Joe Wilson, knowing his wife's supposed covert status, to leak to the Nation multiple times and then publish a very public op ed in the paper of record, if his wife had an involvement in sending him on a controversial trip?
Maybe Ms. Plame and her husband should have stuck to covert activity and not try to play political games in public editorials, if they wished to preserve their privacy and maintain her cover.
On top of all of that. How sloppy was the so called oped anyway? Joe Wilson attempts to discredit the president based on 16 words of his address, and his so called refutation didn't actually refute anything.
To go over the presidents words one more time he said ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Break it down. The British govt has learned. DId the british govt issue findings that Iraq sought uranium from Niger. Yes, therefore its no lie, even if the brits ultimately are proven wrong. Significant quantities of uranium from Africa (not Niger). Because the British intel said that Iraq sought uranium from the Congo, from Sudan as well as one other country. Now, even if you say that Wilson did refute the argument that Iraq sought uranium from the Congo (which he didn't and had no knowledge of the intel used by the brits to gather their report), he never even visited the other countries which were also listed in the report, so has no way to either prove or disprove the declarations. Some refutation (though I notice that the lefties jumped on it as if it was manna from heaven).

But the point is,Plame had to have known that having a hand in sending her husband on this trip had to raise some flags, and that writing about it to the NYT and The Nation as hit pieces against the administration would have to provoke a reaction, as the administration would attempt to refute the charges or clarify the situation to reporters asking about what Joe Wilson said. So how stupid are they? They want to act like whistle blowers and yet at the same time have complete protection from anyone even questioning whether they're being truthful or not?
Finally, you mention that Rove and co. may have violated confidentiality agreements. Did Plame? Think about it, her husband had to have gotten his info from somewhere, as he's not in the CIA and he and perhaps ms. plame herself are leaking tons of info to David Corn even before Wilson writes his oped to the NYT. How much of what was revealed to David Corn was considered confidential, and even if you argue that it was Wilson and not Plame who revealed the info, what kind of agent who is supposedly so covert is giving her husband all kinds of covert info that he then leaks to reporters. She had to have known that WIlson was talking to reporters, therefore is complicit in any info which he reveals, but if she didn't how good a covert agent is she? Her husband is talking shop to the Nation of all places and revealing who knows what and she has no knowledge. She's either complicit or a total idiot.

see, this is just FUCKING unbelievable. jr, she was covert. you sound like your own caricature of clinton. depends on what the meaning of "covert" is. she was covert, that is a legally established FACT. gen. hayden of the nsa/cia was asked under oath whether she was covert and he said YES. but you still say she wasn't.

DARVO
deny
attack
reverse victim order

plame wasn't covert
joe wilson is a media savy has been
scooter libby is the victim

no matter what the facts sworn to under oath at a criminal trial turn out to be.

thanks for the recycled wilson smear job junior. hey junior, have you ever heard of pete wilson? did you know he is joe wilson's uncle? did you know joe wilson is connected to a highly placed california republican family? did you know that, junior?

i'm sorry, but that post from junior is outrageous and just goes to show that many republican supporters are incapable of engaging in a debate because they are too busy spinning their own b.s.

reams of factual evidence was established at the trial, of which junior knows absolutely nothing.

yet, junior is certain in the knowledge of his embarrassing scenario described above for which the only sort of proof would be obtained from skills in extra sensory perception such as mind reading. i mean, that post is a long and embarrassing theory based on the writers perception of knowing what someone's motives are through means that are only available in the spirit world. it reads like you are channeling stephen hayes, the way you just make shit up.

again, this is simply DARVO in action. deny, attack, reverse victim order. there is an established court record that was sworn to under oath by various witness, about which junior knows absolutely nothing. and there is a "counter theory" based on intimate knowledge of plame's motives derived from pure speculation, the minutiae of which junior has mastered. junior will never admit that scooter deliberately broke the law, because laws don't apply to republicans, i guess.

oh yeah, junior, that was a real classy move there on the previous thread, telling me to "shut up" at least a dozen times in single post. in the immortal words of vice president dick cheney, go f*ck yourself.

english teacher,
If i said to shut up,it's because you were essentially saying to everyone "hey the juryspoke, so shut up". Whatever the objections, valid or invalid shut up.So I'm telling you, the president spoke. its his perogative to pardon whoever he wants for whatever reason. Since you don't want to hear our objections to scooter being found guilty, I don't want to hear your objections to why its wrong for the president to pardon whoever he wants. Your objections are immaterial,and the president isn't acting unlawfully because its his perogative to pardon. SO SHUT UP.

See, when you are snarky to other people, they get snarky back right at ya, tw*t face. And go F*CK yourself too..

english teacher wrote:
hanks for the recycled wilson smear job junior. hey junior, have you ever heard of pete wilson? did you know he is joe wilson's uncle? did you know joe wilson is connected to a highly placed california republican family? did you know that, junior?
And this is related to the issue at hand how? How did Pete Wilson get into this. Let me give you some tips, sparky if Joe Wilson were a conservative as you say, he wouldn't be leaking info to David Corn in The Nation magazine. Ok? Because The Nation is a leftist rag, and not just lefty but far lefty. They would probably find Michael Moore's latest screed too conservative.

So when he is the primary source for multiple David Corn articles in the Nation, all designed as admin hit pieces, it should show you where his allegiance is.

english teacher:
see, this is just FUCKING unbelievable. jr, she was covert. you sound like your own caricature of clinton. depends on what the meaning of "covert" is. she was covert, that is a legally established FACT. gen. hayden of the nsa/cia was asked under oath whether she was covert and he said YES. but you still say she wasn't.

DARVO
deny
attack
reverse victim order

plame wasn't covert
joe wilson is a media savy has been
scooter libby is the victim

no matter what the facts sworn to under oath at a criminal trial turn out to be.
Except where in my paragraph am I questioning her covert status? If she were covert, it doesn't mean that anyone speaking about her would know she was covert, only that she worked in the CIA. But the point was, if she was covert, isn't it kind of dumb of her to allow her husband to be the leak of confidential information to David Corn and then go write an oped in the NYT during an election to try to discredit the administration. Especially when she had a hand in sending her husband to the Congo, and there are questions about his credibility as well as whether he has an axe to grind. IF she's covert and trying to maintain a covert status, she doesn't let her husband put himself in a situation where he writes an oped in the NYT allegedly refuting the admin over 16 words of the state of the union for political purposes. See, because now thats public info in the public record. At the very least the administration should have the right to question the credibilty of the leaker as well as his/her story since they were forthcoming enough to plaster it all over the paper of record. See why Deep Throat kept his secret for all those years? If Deep Throat wrote an oped in the NYT he would then be open to rebuttal. And his motivations would be questioned. Did he reveal the info simply because a crime was comitted or did he have an axe to grind etc etc.

So if she wanted to maintain a covert status, she should tell her husband to keep his name out of the papers. Keep feeding the confidential info to David Corn and let him wage the attack.

So if she wanted to maintain a covert status, she should tell her husband to keep his name out of the papers.

Or else the Republicans will out her! That's the dumbest argument I've heard in my life.

it's not a dumb argument at all. You shoulnd't be a whistleblower when your covert wife is part of the story, and by whistleblowing your credibility comes open to question as well as opening up questions about your covert wifes involvement. Joe loved playing the daring off the record leaker of fact to David Corn, but before personally penning his oped his wife should have said something along the lines of "Honey, i'm kind of involved in the story. If you directly try to smear the president or vice president in the NYT oped people are going to start asking questions about how you went in the first place. and that puts me in a delicate situation. So honey how about instead of acting like a whistleblower you be a littele more discreet". You know something to that effect.

If Joe Wilson takes 16 words out of context and tries to suggest that the administration is lying the administration, any administration is going to attempt to rebut your story, by laying out its facts, by disrediting the whistle blowers story and by laying out facts as it sees it.

It doesn't have to even be an intentional outing.
Armitage had no animus towards either WIlson OR Plame when a month prior to Novaks column he was talking to Bob Woodward and they had the following conversation:

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He — he’s perfect. She — she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Now here is Armitage, nearly a month before again leaking the info to Novak, leaking the info to Woodward too. And he's not leaking it out of any animus or conspiracy he's just spreading gossip.
He doesnt reveal that she's covert, nor her name because he doesn't know she's covert. However, note that Bob Woodward is curious as to why WIlson was sent. Because WIlson is a critic of the administration, because he doesn't even work for the CIA. His reporters instincts go off, because it sounds fishy to him.
Also what does armitage say? He says EVERYBODY knows. Everybody knows because Joe Wilson has been babbling about it to everyone becuase he's disgruntled that people are questioning why he was sent. And he's telling everyone. He certainly was leaking a lot of info to David Corn at the time, that's for sure. But it also ties into Andrea Mitchell's comment where she said that it was common knowledge that Ms. Plame worked in the CIA, before retracting that later. But a month before Plame is supposedly outed by Armitage, while I guess a second more sinister conspiracy of Libby and co. is afoot, both Armitage AND Joe Wilson are babbling about Joe Wilsons wife. Now why would Armitage lie about that (that everone knows and that Joe Wilson himself was babbling about it).
NOw this is not part of a grand conspiracy on Armitage's part, but if Armitage is privy to not only the fact that Plame works at the agency but that Wilson is spreading it all over town it lends a lot more credence to the argument that this was common knowledge around town, and a good part of that was because Wilson himself was spreading the story around.

We can take that with a grain of salt or not, but then again that's what the entire case is based on. He said she said. LIbby says he learned from someone, that person says it wasn't true.

You'll also note when the NYT was defending Judy Miller from having to reveal her source they argued that Ms. Plame wasn't covert. Also various journalists may or may not have been invovled in the case.

Ari Fleisher for example mentioned that the reporter James Dickerson was told about it from Ari, and James was covering the trial on his blog at the time

"I was at the Scooter Libby trial to cover it, and all of a sudden, I found myself in the middle of the case. In his testimony today, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told the courtroom—which included me—that when I was a White House correspondent for Time magazine, he had told me that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

"He did?

"Everyone had heard about Robert Novak, Matt Cooper, and Judith Miller, the reporters who had received the Valerie Plame leak. But now Ari was saying I was in that club, too."

Was he in the club? Who the hell knows. but its not so cut and dried that in fact there was a coordinated plan to get Plame. Rather it sounds like eeryone and anyone was talking about this and it was making the rounds. ANd at any rate, there is also no suggestion that either Armitage or Libby or Woodward or Novak or any of the characters knew that she was covert.

But if she was covert, then it was awfully stupid of her to let her husband attempt to whistleblow on a story that she had a part in.

"That's the dumbest argument I've heard in my life."

I've heard a dumber one: Libby's perjury prevents Fitzgerald from determining what Cheney knew and when he knew it.