Captain's Quarters -

I think you might have left out the most obvious point here. It would be hard to credit much of what Libby might say --if he were going to say anything damaging at all-- since the man was convicted of perjury. And that may be the real conspiracy! Bush orchestrated this destruction of Libby's credibility. Ah, yes....I see the grassy knoll very clearly now.

But I would like to learn more about how denuding the national forests fits into all of this.

I hope the Democrats notified their jailhouse snitch to return the script--of all the things Libby told the snitch in prison. The show's been cancelled.

Captain, I have to disagree with you on this. Just because he was convicted by a jury and the appeals court of 3 members who had already ruled on the Judith Miller incarceration, why should Libby be considered to have no appeal if it had gone to the entire appeals court and the Supreme Court if necessary?

He can still appeal, and I haven't heard he isn't, and if it is found he was unjustly convicted for various reasons such as not allowing in all the evidence he wanted to present even to the point of disallowing a memory expert when it was first allowed, because Libby asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to testify (kind of shaky to my mind on the part of the judge), and one of the jurors saying while they were deliberating it would have been nice to have had a memory expert testify, why do you assume this conviction will stand?

And if it doesn't stand why should he have to serve 30 months in jail before he is declared not guilty?

This was overkill by an overzealous prosecutor who had the judge in the palm of his hand.

What jail term did Bill Clinton get for perjury?

What jail term did Sandy Berger get for destroying possibly important national documents?

Why should Libby be treated differently?

He has a quarter million dollar fine, and probation if it holds up since his commutation of jail time may erase that, but he still has his good name to defend.

I don't understand why you think jail is proper since his appeals have only so far gone to 3 appelate court judges who seem to have a vested interest in not ruling in his favor as it would make themselves look foolish for jailing Judith Miller.

Sorry if this is confusing, but when I get passionate about something I sometimes have a hard time saying it in a few words.

Jeanette,

Good points. Furthermore, should one really be surprised that a jury who is overwhelmingly Democrat voted to convict? Isn't there a problem that one of the jurors stated that they were looking for someone to convict, and since they couldn't get Cheney or Rove, then... well, Libby would have to do? Libby got screwed, his commutation was just.

Jim C

Is anyone else incredulous at the mileage leftists can get on sheer speculation?

I've had English teachers, good ones, who, if I had written the clap-trap Colson wrote, would hand my paper back with a big red F.

Isn't there some minimal requirement in rhetoric for face-plausibility when you speculate? You can't just make crap up!

Some of the worst of the Bush Administration critics who are still Conservatives or moderates, even moderate Liberals have still said all they've seen is that Libby is guilty of NOT REMEMBERING THINGS THE SAME WAY OTHER WITNESSES REMEMBERED THINGS - and that other journalist witnesses have had some FACTS presented in the case to DISPROVE THEIR MEMORIES - yet THEY were not charged with perjury, too, even though solid evidence shows THEY "lied" - perjured themselves.

PLUS the "JURORS" who had NO CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR BEING SEATED ON THAT JURY.

"Fits" had no business still engaging the investigation once he decided NOT to charge Armitage, Novak and the TIMES. AB OUT THE 3rd DAY OF THE INVESTIGATION/WITCHHUNT.

WE DO THE PROCESS NO FAVOR BY "RESPECTING" THE DIM LIBERAL INQUISITIONS.

The Congress now has 300 investigations going this year - most for Bush actions we ll within his Constitutional authority.

THIS IS INTIMIDATION and they have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in stopping the leaks of classified information.

In fact, the investigation of CHENEY shows they are determined to find a way to reveal YET MORE classified documents - the more damaging to AMERICAN INTERESTS the BETTER!

HANG THE DIMS FOR TREASON and solve the whole thing

Any charges that need to be investigated now is how the DIM PARTY is trying to overwrite the American Constitution with an old Stalin Agenda for the destruction of America.

And let's not forget that there is one more step in the appeals process that no one seems ready to mention.

After all of the judicial steps have been taken and no appeal granted, every convicted American also has the last step of appeal to the Governor, if his state is the relevant venue, or the President if the U.S. is the venue, for clemency or pardon. Its all part of the system laid out in the Constitution - READ IT!!!

I am still flummoxed when I continue to read posters who screech about the grant of clemency as detrimental to "the rule of law" when in fact the entire process adhered strictly to the law. As I've said before, one may argue about the wisdom of the grant 'til the cows come home, but the legality and respect for law are blatantly clear.

How can anyone weaken the law by using it for the purpose for which it was created in the first place?

Sorry if this is confusing, but when I get passionate about something I sometimes have a hard time saying it in a few words.

Posted by: Jeanette at July 8, 2007 10:06 AM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

CLEAR AS A BELL - AND EXCELLENT!

"RESPECTING" INJUSTICE does NOTHING to promote the ideals of the Constitutional Judiciary Branch.

EVEN if it's "only Libby", and he is "only from the Bush Administration".

If we continue letting the DIM PARTY excoriate the Constitution, the GOP or Conservatives and Christians like the Roman Empire at the Colliseum, while they pull the outrageous felonies THEY DO WITH IMPUGNITY, you only drive this nation closer to Civil War.

"CHISUM":
Lawrence Murphy: "See, Mr. Chisum is a man who RESPECTS the Law. And around here, I'm the man who OWNS the Law."

When my oldest child was about 3, my neice and nephew accused him of shoving my nephew off a high place and hurting him pretty good. My two sisters backed up their two children, and let me know with my storng authoritarian stance, I owed it to them to do to my child what I let them know I ex pected of theirs.
I had STRONG suspicions and I believed my son when he said he didn't do it. The habits of late of the other two had left them with a severe credibility problem - but try as I might, I couldnt' break their story.
So finally, with a totally broken heart, I spanked my child. To this day, he is 30 - he doesn't trust m e anymore.

Five minutes later, my sisters asked me why I spanked him, because then they said, they didn't believe their children, either. I had said NOTHING to them in the meantime - they had just been having a good one on me, egging me on, and must have thought I'd trust my own instincts and do nothing, anyway.
So then I went back outside and talked to the other two, and this time, they confessed, the little girl had pushed him off, and been afraid fo getting in trouble, and talked the pliable little boy into defending her by accusing my son.

I think that some people who have never been involved in being the OBJECT of a great injustice don't really have a clue what it is like to be in the shoes of someone who is having their life destroyed this way.

A few years ago, a community in Kentucky went to some great Christian leaders in the reg ion and confessed that back in the 60's and 70's, they had framed a great evangelist and healer living in their area. They had del ibverately framed and accused him of alcoholism and drunk driving, and ruined his life, ministry and family - though God s till moved when he ministered.

Since then, their community had been ravaged, and finally, after close to 40 years, they confronted themselves that there was a curse onthe community and land and the local churches and civic government. They went in search of what they had to do to provide restitution, to ask his surviving family members for forgiveness and get the curses broken.

I saw the service a few months ago, when they finally got all the participants together with the man's daughter and Rick Joyner presided over the ceremony, which included them coming forward wi th the results of AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION of the events in wh ich her father had been DELIBERATELY SET UP AND FRAMED, by someone spiking a glass of milk he usually bought after meetings on a regular basis, from a local diner, on his way home - and having the law waiting, when he began weaving on the road, before he realized he needed to pull over, which he did first, but then they were instantly there - allowed no alcohol or drug tests, but convicted him in court of drunk driving. With the help of some local church leaders.

WE HAVE TO PUT A STOP TO THIS GARBAGE IN THE COURTS WHICH WE ARE ALLOWING THE DIM PARTY SOCIALISTS TO PULL OFF and curse our lands.

NO HEALING OCCURS WHEN INJUSTICE REIGNS - ONLY BITTERNESS GRO WS.

We must stop this before it is too late.

NOBODY can imagine the carnage of a real Civil War.
LEAST of all the silly Dim Socialists, who will never care, anyway.

But the answer to THIS is NOT in "turning the other cheek" and persisting in pretending that such cases as this Libby case have ANY credibility, because it does NOT.

Capt. I recommend you rent out "CHISUM" with John Wayne and realize that with the exception of the character of his neice, the events and characters in that movie are biographical.

We better find the best way we can to prevent this from coming to an all-out war, because people aren't going to sit for the Dims continuing all their roughshod ways - and the Fairness Doctrine still staring down at us.

Sitting back and allowing it to excalate has a proven end - it always blows up - eventually. The sooner the smaller, the longer the bigger.

I guess I'll start with the first leak of Plame's identity, which didn't come from the White House at all.

The leak did come from the White House (or whatever part of the government Dick Cheney considers himself).

Cheney wrote a note on the July 6th Wilson op-ed asking whether it's common for "them" to send husbands on junkets.

On July 8, both Armitage and Libby spoke to reporters (Novak and Miller respectively) about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. Karl Rove also told Matt Cooper of Time that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA prior to Novak's column.

All three men passed along classified information they weren't allowed to reveal to reporters. In Armitage and Rove's case (as he Rove confirmed Wilson's CIA employment for Novak), it led to the outing of a CIA agent. But regardless, all three potentially broke the law if they knew she was covert when they passed this information on.

Now, Bob Woodward also says Armitage spoke to him about Plame being a CIA agent two years prior. I'm not sure the context of it, but this fact does not negate the fact that Cheney seems to have prompted three men to tell reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in an effort to discredit him. This is what fuels conspiracy theorists. And this is not a very "out there" theory. There's solid evidence for it.

But even more importantly, the fact that Armitage spoke to Woodward about Plame two years prior didn't make it all right for he, Rove and Libby to reveal her CIA employment to reporers in 2003 (seemingly at the prompting of Cheney).

since his (Armitage's) leak was the only one that made it to print.

this is really a meaningless point. All three men passed on classified information that IDed a covert CIA agent, so all three potentially broke the 1982 statute.

this is really a meaningless point. All three men passed on classified information that IDed a covert CIA agent, so all three potentially broke the 1982 statute.

And not one single Democrat--not one--has stepped up to say that Armitage should be charged. Why? Because he's an ideological ally, of course.

Jeanette - you are spot on.
Further, I can't see how there can be obstruction of justice absent a crime. I have never seen anything here but a difference of recollection between Libby and Russert. There was no evidence that Libby lied other than Russert's testimony. Regardless of the public esteem of Russert, that is too fragile a case to ruin Libby's life. Bush should fire Fitzgerald for prosecutorial excess.

Sorry, Rose, I doubt that your son has totaly lost trust in you for 30 years due to one incident when he was three years old, which I do not think he even remembers in the first place.

Yeah, I know that was not the thrust of your post, but I stopped reading after that.

Sometimes I think that the sole purpose of political parties is to provide excuses for their side regardless of their actions. If a defective memory is now an excuse for committing perjury then we will have fun trying to get anyone convicted of the crime, all we will get is “well this is the way I remember it if it’s wrong don’t blame me”. Ed is right and intellectually consistent, he does not apply a special standard for Conservatives and another for Liberals. If truthful testimony is a foundation of our legal system then there is no excuse for committing perjury, period.

Once again the absolutely and completely worthless Democrat Party has abdicated their responsiblity as elected officials, in a nakedly partisan attempt to criminalize opposition to their pornographic lust for power.

After parlaying a non-crime, a rigged jury, lying witnesses/media and an amoral prosecutor and a Stalinesque show trial into a conviction, Democrat scum celebrated - until justice was done and the innocent man walked free. Boo hoo, cry the Democrats.

Democrats wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and three years, and came up with a big fistfull of nothing. Once again, Democrats are miserable failures.

You bet an investigation needs to be done - into why the Democrat Party is using government officials to illegally persecute political opponents, rigging juries, subourning perjury and paying reporters to lie.

Keep in mind that the same jury pool which tried to put Libby in jail is the same jury pool which consistently has kept Marion Barry out of jail and continuing his high living, pun optional.

Fitzfong's basic mental and ethical defect is that he kept searching for who stole the strawberries long after it had been determined through Armitage there were no strawberries to steal.

If there's a lesson in this trial it is to always remember that if you're a government employee called to testify your best option is to take the Fifth Amendment or fake Hillary amnesia even if it involves testimony on who fed your cat three years before. If Timmy Russert testifies otherwise and the prosecutor in frustration can't pin who fed your cat on Cheney or Rove you might go to jail.

There is another interesting question to ponder that occurs to me after reading all of the posts and counterposts along the way; is it possible to simply declare someone "covert" in spite of the fact that everyone in town knows who they are and who they work for? In other words, can someone be "dejure covert" and "defacto public" at the same time?

(I have visions of Chevy Chase looking into a camera with that dead straight face of his and declaring that the horse standing by his side is in fact a chair. And then, after a short pause for effect, having the horse urinate all over his pants leg, while he continues to stare unmoved directly into the camera.)

The reason I ask is that all of the transcribed conversations and all of the published testimony constantly refer to the lady in question as "employed " by the CIA as an analyst, but very rarely as an "agent". It reads like locker room gossip among a bunch of operators whose focus is on political PR issues connected to the odd behavior of CIA in its choice of someone like Joe Wilson to pursue a mission uniquely unsuited to him. In that context, I find it perfectly understandable that the question of covert status wouldn't even be asked because everybody in town already knew who her "employer" was. And remember, the law specifies that the leaker must "knowingly" release the classified information to someone unauthorized, for a crime to be committed. In that sense, the lady's actual status is wholly irrelevant; its what the accused knew at the time that matters.

Perhaps the court may wish to rule on that question, too. Have a nice day!

viking01 said

"Keep in mind that the same jury pool which tried to put Libby in jail is the same jury pool which consistently has kept Marion Barry out of jail and continuing his high living, pun optional."

Not really-I posted a link here a couple of weeks ago to a transcript of PBS's Tavis Smiley show, where he had on a former Federal Prosecutor familiar with the case. Said prosecutor said the Libby jury did not at all represent the demographics of Washington DC. And remember, the jury foreman was a former Washington Post Reporter, who also just so happened to be a neighbor of one of the main witnesses in the case, Timmy Russert.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200702/20070226_smith.html

excerpt:

Tavis: What do you know about the racial make-up of this jury?

Smith: The jury breaks down to about - before this juror got dismissed, there were 12 jurors. Ten White and two Black. There were nine women and three males. Now you have eight women and three males sitting on this jury, and you still have two African Americans on this jury panel.

Tavis: How do you read the make-up of the jury, in terms of their deliberations?

Smith: That’s hard to say. This jury is kind of unique in that if you look at the demographics of D.C., this jury doesn’t necessarily reflect the demographics of this community. But it’s a very educated jury. So it’s been one very simple for the prosecution to explain their case to, and one for the defense to try to convince that just like all the prosecution witnesses had faulty memories in their testimony and cross-examination, their client could have had the same problem. Therefore, the prosecution failed to carry their burden. So it’s a good jury for the prosecution, but not a bad jury for the defense, either.

Tavis: By my own admission, as I said earlier, I have not followed this case every single day, which is why I'm glad to have you on. I asked that question because I happen to know Ted Wells, who’s Scooter Libby’s attorney. And I was wondering, at least, whether or not his being African American would play well with an African American jury. Kind of like Johnny Cochran in the O.J. Case. But I hear you saying that’s not really an issue, given that the majority of the jury is White.

All the journalists everywhere were reporting that before ANY article was published, Plame and Wilson were trying to sell a book deal at Washington cocktail parties - and NOBODY thinks she was COVERT within the time frame of the law - IF EVER.

It's a bunch of typical Liberal poppycock.

And NOBODY is on trial for SLANDERING the WHITE HOUSE for three years for JOE WILSON'S SLANDER and the TIMES repeating it all - and they still quote all his trash as if it was true!

Tom finally gets around to poitning out that Armitage talked to Woodward, though i don't think it was two years prior, I think it was a little more than a month prior.

But at any rate, this conversation, which Woodward kept a record of and which I posted an excerpt from in the last post about the whole Libby affair.

Nowhere is it apparent that Armitage was working for the Vice President when he leaked to Woodward. Woodward, obviously was a shocked as anyone else as to why Wison was sent and Armitage says that it was because his wife sent him and she works in the CIA on WMD issues. he's not even saying it in a bad way to discredit the trip at all, so your assertiion that Armitage too was working for the Vice President is ludicrous on its face.

One last point he mentions is that EVERYONE knew. And everyone knew because Joe Wilson was calling everyone in town because he was pissed off. So who did Joe Wilson call and blab to, other than David Corn of course. Is Armitage lying about this? Why would he?

Is that why Andrea Mitchell said that it was common knowledge that Ms. Plame worked in the CIA?

Tom wrote,
this is really a meaningless point. All three men passed on classified information that IDed a covert CIA agent, so all three potentially broke the 1982 statute.
And now you're back to them potentially violating the 1982 statute.is it about the outing of the agents or the confidentiality agreements? Because if its about the 1982 statute, don't you think that Fitz would have maybe charged someone with violating the 1982 statute? The investigation is currenly closed, and yet no charging of anyone actually violating that statute.

So why do you continue to insinuate that they may have done so?

History will exonerate Libby and expose this as the political witchhunt that it is. That won't do Libby nor his family much good today though.

I think I'm going to make a prediction, here.

The president has been dealing with this bullshit, as an attempt to break his presidency, for six and a half years, now. And, he hasn't lost control of the wheel.

I think, up ahead, he'll come out stronger, and more liked.

As congress seems to be bearing the brunt of America's distrust.

It's possible, with this one small move; whereby Libby doesn't go to jail. But the rest of the paperwork "prospers" among lawyers ... Sort'a like the way phsicians do sub-specialties, too ... All the way up the experts ... taking their law practices to new heights.

This means that the Fitzmas past, with the presser; and the frog marching, came to naught.

And, whatever the mistakes were? History will show they weren't all Dubya's fault.

It seems the Bonkeys rarely get to hold the ball for all that long. Heck, following Nixon, we got Carter. He's at the bottom of the barrel, now, as far as presidencies, go.

Even CLinton. What do you think of? Monica? Or not? (And, Monica also transpired on Linda Tripp's taping capabilities supplied by the CIA's taping device. PLUS, their outlets to the media streams.)

It's possible that the real freaks have no alliance to anyone?

And, Fitz' show? Let it stay on the road. Doesn't help the Bonkeys. Doesn't even help the Ma & Pa Kettle Show. Considering their poll reviews!

Oh, Captain. Thanks for the story, yesterday, of the maggots and the dead rat, falling on the head(s) of New Yuk Times journalists. Seems they couldn't order up better building plans, either.

It's been ages since I've gone to the old media to find out anything.

And, even longer than that where I've dared guess a future event.

Heck, the president's worst maneuver was the immigration bill. And, now that it's died, it's changed something in congress. If I had to guess? Lots of the old timers are in the same boat at John McCain. Once an influencing factor. And, now NOT.

While Fred's slowed down on his "coming out" party. Which is interesting, all by itself. It means he can wait. And, keep the exciting running on anticipation, alone. (Ya know? Brides can't do that. Not anymore.) So, being able to "hold out" has all sorts of ramifications.

Fred Thompson seems to know something about owning a 20-point spread over his mud slinging opponents. (In Tennesee! A state Algore didn't carry in 2000.) And, among all the statistics out there, if a candidate doesn't carry his own state? He loses presidential elections. Yes. We keep needing to be reminded.

Because that's how the Bonkeys bought into their Fitz-dream. That's what happens when you don't have adult supervision worth spit.

I think Soldier's Mom is spot on.

The truth will out on Fitzfong eventually. Unfortunately, like the Duke Three defendants it nowadays has become a legal system of whether one can weather the blackmail, financial shakedown, gotcha game called procedure and the outcome determined mostly by jury selection venue which our courts system has become.

Had the trial venue for Libby been across the Potomac, the OJ trial been in Brentwood instead of South Central L.A (Ito electorate)., and the Duke potential jury pool (Nifong electorate) been other than Durham the outcome of those proceedings would have been very different indeed.

The outcome of the exonerated Duke Three being found guilty was very real and in a pre-internet age of old media spin / obfuscation. The proving of the "guilt" of the innocent would have been the probable outcome and an easily attained one.

To my friends, justice, all others, the law. - Benito Juarez

Fitxpatrick's charter was to find the "leaker." Once Armitage, in the second week of the investigation, told Fitzpatrick, an officer of the Court, that he (Armitage) was the "leaker," Fitzpatrick had an affirmative obligation to notify the presiding judge,the Justice Department and the Grand Jury,of what he had learned. Fitzpatrick's sole remaining discretionary act was to decide whether or not to ask the Grand Jury to indict Armitage and proceed to prosecution, or to drop the matter and close the investigation with or without a report to the public. Everything Fitzpatrick actually did after he knew the "leaker's" identity was an abuse and misuse of prosecutorial power and Fitzpatrick should stand trial for those actions.

Fitxpatrick's charter was to find the "leaker." Once Armitage, in the second week of the investigation, told Fitzpatrick, an officer of the Court, that he (Armitage) was the "leaker," Fitzpatrick had an affirmative obligation to notify the presiding judge,the Justice Department and the Grand Jury,of what he had learned. Fitzpatrick's sole remaining discretionary act was to decide whether or not to ask the Grand Jury to indict Armitage and proceed to prosecution, or to drop the matter and close the investigation with or without a report to the public. Everything Fitzpatrick actually did after he knew the "leaker's" identity was an abuse and misuse of prosecutorial power and Fitzpatrick should stand trial for those actions.

Fitxpatrick's charter was to find the "leaker." Once Armitage, in the second week of the investigation, told Fitzpatrick, an officer of the Court, that he (Armitage) was the "leaker," Fitzpatrick had an affirmative obligation to notify the presiding judge,the Justice Department and the Grand Jury,of what he had learned. Fitzpatrick's sole remaining discretionary act was to decide whether or not to ask the Grand Jury to indict Armitage and proceed to prosecution, or to drop the matter and close the investigation with or without a report to the public. Everything Fitzpatrick actually did after he knew the "leaker's" identity was an abuse and misuse of prosecutorial power and Fitzpatrick should stand trial for those actions.

Stephen,

You are wrong. The CIA requested an investigation to determine whether or not the section 1982 statute protecting the identity of covert agents was violated.

During the course of this investigation, Fitzgerald found that Armitage, Rove and Libby all told reporters that Wilson's wife worked the CIA.

According to the 1982 statute, if a person knowingly gives classified information that IDs a covert agent to someone who is not authorized to receive it, then a law has been committed.

Three people gave classified information that IDed Plame as a CIA agent to people not authorized to receive it. Fitzgerald continued the investigation to determine whether these men knew she was covert. During that time, Libby lied. Why, we don't know.

But, it's absolutely false to claim that Fitzgerald was only asked to find out who ONE of Novak's sources was (there were two, Rove being the other). He had to find out whether anyone in the adminstration knowing leaked the ID of a covert agent. Three men were found to have leaked the ID of a covert agent. He was never able to find out if they knew she was covert in part because of Libby's obstruction.

JR,

I'm merely explaining why the investigation should not have stopped when Fitzgerald found out Armitage was ONE of the leakers. This seems to be a new talking point that has sprung up.

It would have been illogical to stop the investigation at that point. And Fitzgerald said he was never able to gain a clear picture as to whether any (or one or two) of these guys knew she was covert because of Libby's obstruction. I don't know if they did know if she was covert or not.

Tom Shipley

Three men were found to have leaked the ID of a covert agent.

Not true. This was not "found" by any court of law. In fact whether or not Plame was covert remains a closely guarded secret by the same CIA which otherwise leaks like a sieve. So you are wrong on all counts here. Nobody was "found" to have leaked the ID of a covert agent, and Plame was not found to be covert.

This was not "found" by any court of law.

Well, Libby was. And evidence in the trial showed that Armitage and Rove also leaked information. By your logic, Armitage was not found to be a leaker either.

And the jury's perjury conviction shows they believed that Libby told Russert about Plame, thus he leaked her ID.

And, no, her covert status is no longer a secret. As part of the investigation, Fitzgerald had access to Plame's CIA umployment history going back to 2002. He summarized it for the court and that summary was declassified a few months ago. here you go:

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

Really Captain? You can't see the difference between a whistle blower (you know talking about stuff that's classified because it's illegal) and an administration taking revenge by outing a CIA agent? Big difference between what the NYT did and what this administration did. This is elementary - You NEED to understand this if you are to have any credibility.

Tom Shipley

Well, Libby was. And evidence in the trial showed that Armitage and Rove also leaked information. By your logic, Armitage was not found to be a leaker either.

Again, you show your ignorance of the facts of the case. Libby was not found "to have leaked the ID of a covert agent", as you keep claiming. He was found guilty of perjury. Amitage and Rove were not found to have leaked the name of a covert agent either.

Fitzgerald had access to Plame's CIA umployment history going back to 2002.

Which is quite meaningless for the purposes of this case.

He summarized it for the court and that summary was declassified a few months ago

And that summary does not show that she was covert as that term is defined under the IIPA. If fact it does not claim she was covert in any sense.

tom wrote:

Well, Libby was. And evidence in the trial showed that Armitage and Rove also leaked information. By your logic, Armitage was not found to be a leaker either.
Really? THat's what Libby was found guilty of? Funny that's not what was reported in the papers? You sure you have your facts right, or are you just reading from your conspiracy notebook? Why don't you tell us with some specificity what exactly the perjury charge related to,because I assure it was not about leaking an agents name. Noone was found guilty of the violating the 1982 statute.

Fitxpatrick's charter was to find the "leaker." Once Armitage, in the second week of the investigation, told Fitzpatrick, an officer of the Court, that he (Armitage) was the "leaker," Fitzpatrick had an affirmative obligation to notify the presiding judge,the Justice Department and the Grand Jury,of what he had learned. Fitzpatrick's sole remaining discretionary act was to decide whether or not to ask the Grand Jury to indict Armitage and proceed to prosecution, or to drop the matter and close the investigation with or without a report to the public. Everything Fitzpatrick actually did after he knew the "leaker's" identity was an abuse and misuse of prosecutorial power and Fitzpatrick should stand trial for those actions.

Posted by: stephen parker at July 8, 2007 5:02 PM
*************************

AMEN! Everything else that Fitz did was SLANDER to the Bush Administration, and Abuse of power in the NIFONG tradition.

NYT should have been tried for SLANDER and LIBEL, as well as Treason.

Flenser,

I don't know what to say except that you're completely wrong. Did you read the summary of Plame's employment history. And yes, it is relevent since for one to be covert under the section 1982 statute you must travel overseas undercover within the past 5 years. That summary shows Plame did. Did you read it? It most certainly does show she was a cover agent at the time of the leaks.

JR,

No, the jury did not find Libby guilty of leaking the ID of a covert agent. But since they found him guilty of lying about telling Russert about Plame, they're saying they believe he told Russert about Plame working for the CIA. Get it?

And not one single Democrat--not one--has stepped up to say that Armitage should be charged. Why? Because he's an ideological ally, of course.

Posted by: Palamas at July 8, 2007 11:37 AM

*************

Not Armitage, not Novac - and CERTAINLY NOT the TIMES

Actually, I'm wrong about the Libby/Armitage conversation. It was never suggested that Libby told Russert about Plame. Libby claimed Russert first told him about Plame. Which Russert denied. His account was backed up by three members of the White House staff dicussing Plame with Libby prior to his conversation with Russert.

But, evidence gathered in the investigation has shown that Armitage, Libby and Rove all told reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

If you all are going to start claiming that because a jury didn't say Rove and Libby leaked classified information that they didn't, you're going to have to stop saying Armitage was a leaker.

We know Armitage was a leaker through media reports and court documents, just as we know that Rove and Libby were leakers through media reports and court documents.

And the FACT that plame was covert means they leaked classified info.

If Timmy Russert testifies otherwise and the prosecutor in frustration can't pin who fed your cat on Cheney or Rove you might go to jail.

Posted by: viking01 at July 8, 2007 1:44 PM

*******************

Excellent Post - and the reason that nobody will ever think twice about the Dim party ever again, as credible, viable, or a full partner in a democratic republic, in any sense of the word.

They are to America what Stalin was to the USSR. No less, even though, thankfully, they do not have as much absolute power.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 8, 2007 10:06 PM

***************

Sorry. You couldn't sell that load of malarkey to a necktie party.

The only reason the DIMS "buy" it is because it is sooooo convenient.

It ain't making the Dims any friends.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/459624,CST-NWS-prince08.article

You mean, the Fitzmas past, where Rove was supposed to be "frog marched," haven't taught those suckers on the left a thing?

By the way, there's still the meme that Libby lied. HELLO. If he were going to LIE, he would not have said he called Russert; to complain about Chrissy Matthews' show; and Russert, for some reason, "donned a hat."

This hat disguised him so that he was no longer the manager in charge of NBC's shows. He wasn't even a journalist. He was just a man who takes complaints; channeling some guy from India ... who says "I'm so sorry." Over. And, over.

No? You don't think it wa that?

Why did Russert just roll over for the FBI? How come Eckenrode was there for the disgraceful "presser" ... and then? Big FBI guy got put out to pasture. Are these folks waiting for the Bonkeys to come back? So Berg(l)er, et.al, can go back to "business as usual?"

Actually, this Plame thing began during Bush's first term. It was supposed to make him miserable. But it was also designed to GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE.

Not what came down the pike.

Shows ya what happens when you bet the ranch on your plans; and your bet isn't a winnah.

As a matter of fact, I'm listening to Drudge, now; and one guy is betting that Algore manages to wrestle the Bonkey nomination out of Hillary's hands.

You want me to bet? I don't do that.

"But since they found him guilty of lying about telling Russert about Plame, they're saying they believe he told Russert about Plame working for the CIA. Get it?"

You seem to grasp the use of inductive logic applied to a perjury and obstruction of justice conviction; why do you continue to believe Fitzgerald when he asserts that he can't do that with regard to Cheney and Rove--that Libby's obstruction of justice and perjury halted his investigation?

Richard Armitage also failed to finger Cheney and Rove as co-conspirators in a deliberate ploy to knowlingly out a covert operative. Yet Fitzgerald isn't blaming Armitage for the stalled investigation. Why not?

Instead of giving the truthful and accurate answer that he has no documents or statements that support the notion that Armitage, Rove, Cheney, and Libby violated the 1982 statute, Fitzgerald prefers the inept argument that Libby's hokum built a foolproof shelter for the Big Ones That Got Away.

The dog that didn't bark in the night: if Libby was part of some dark cabal to get Joe Wilson by tricking reporters into asking if his wife worked at CIA, why didn't he simply take the Fifth whenever Fitz questioned him? If Bush and Co. are conspirators, then I'd have to say that they are among the most incompetent in history. Quite aside from the fact that getting revenge on somebody by (somehow) making it known that his wife works for CIA is pretty thin gruel, one would think that they would have had their stories a bit straighter, or would have taken a page from the Clinton gang's playbook and stonewalled.

Del,

Pretty much backs up what we already knew: Armitage told Novak that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

It's funny, within days of Cheney's note, three different administration guys respond to inquiries about the "16 words" with the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Coincidence?

We have Novak's account of Armitage and Rove telling him about Plame working for the CIA, Miller's account of Libby telling her about Plame and Cooper's account of Rove telling him about Plame.

Of course, to flenser, none of this means any of the men leaked information. We have to wait for a jury to tell us that.

I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. 1) Kind of blows a whole in the theory that everyone knew Plame worked for the CIA and 2) this wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark. Novak believes Armitage put it out there to be published.

then I'd have to say that they are among the most incompetent in history...

These days, Doc, when you put "most incompetent" and "Bush" in the same sentence, the most likley reaction is going to be a nod.

palme was not covert, nor did she qualify for covert under the statute in question.

Regardless, she was first outed by Aimes over a decade ago.

printing the truth is now taking revenge?

It's a strange world that the left lives in.

MarkW,

Yes she was protected under the 1982 statute:

Here's an excerpt from it:

(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;

In Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald states that Plame's employment status was classified.

Also, an unclassified summary of Plame's CIA employment history since 2002 shows:

A) CIA classified her as 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 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

She was covert and covered by the 1982 statute.

Why did Fitzgerald present the court with a summary of classified information? The Federal judge has the same clearance to classified info on request, even if he doesn't publish it in open court. The defendant in this case definitely could see classified information. That's been true even in the bad old days of the Cold War, the Boyce/Daulton and Walker spy trials.

Tom wrote:
She was covert and covered by the 1982 statute.

Then why didn't Fitz charge anyone for violating that statute?

Tom wrote:
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. 1) Kind of blows a whole in the theory that everyone knew Plame worked for the CIA and 2) this wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark. Novak believes Armitage put it out there to be published.
Why does it blow a hole in the theory that everyone knew. Contrast that to Armitage's earlier conversation with Woodward where he says eeryone knew because Wilson was blabbing to everyone or Andrea Mitchell's statement that everyone knew. Who's telling the truth there and who's perjuring themselves?
2) if that's the case then again, why wasn't Armitage convicted of any crimes by the prosecutor trying to find out who the leaker was? Why isn't Armitage included in the list of people trying to stonewall the investigation by Fitz, and why does Woodward, who he previously leaked the info say it sounded like Armitage was just engaging in gossip.

Tom wrote:
She was covert and covered by the 1982 statute.

Before this becomes one of those urban myths that will not die, it is important to establish the facts.

From Just One Minute

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/06/plame_mythbuste.html

"Here we go again. A subsequent defense response clarified the Fitzgerald release (my emphasis):

The summary described above was provided to the defense along with a companion summary that defined a “covert” CIA employee as a “CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee.”4 It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines “covert agent” differently.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070531_defense_presentencing.pdf

Or of asking the CIA is the preferred path, let's reprise happened when Congressman Peter Hoekstra of the House Intel Committee did just that:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/04/12/cia_politics
Look, the CIA prepared a memo to prop up Fitzgerald's case and their own criminal referral, but they have not opined on Ms. Plame's status under the IIPA. "

Then why didn't Fitz charge anyone for violating that statute?

Well, the statute says the violator must knowingly out a covert agent. Obviously, Fitz didn't gather enough evidence to indict any of the three men for knowingly outing a covert agent.