Posted on 10/29/2005 8:16:08 AM PDT by frankjr
The only thing I want to know about the whole ordeal is
1 Was Wilson at one time on Kerry's campaign staff?
2 At who's request was he sent to Nigeria?
3 The objective of his control at the CIA?
4 Who was his control?
5 Why was it necessary?
Check this out and tell me what you think:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/libbys-indictment-does-not-depend-upon.html
Since no report seems to be forthcoming, is there anyway to get the transcripts of Libby to see how the questions were posed (were they asked specifically to the reporters contact, or did you know on Y, no, gave documentation showing he knew on Y...or both...etc.)
This doesn't make sense.
And if that press conf. Fitz gave didn't show prejudice... I don't know what does.
The cart has been in front of the horse from the outset of this whole episode, IMHO. Why hasn't anyone pulled her personnel file and developed a timeline of her classifcation/status relative to the alleged events? My guess is that would have saved a lot of time and effort (but it would have deprived the CommieLibDems of a forum).
i'll give you another one for your list of questions re
joe wilson. how is it that he was given this mission by the cia and the cia NEVER even got a written report on his findings. nor, did the cia EVER correct wilson's flappy claims that he was sent by VP cheney. wouldn't be surprised to find a cia led clandestine mission against the administration and wilson was a willing useful idiot, as was his wife.
The investigation had to do with "outing" the owner of a car in Langley's parking lot....not with when any particular member of staff knew the car was there.
Or so I thought.
If Fitzgerald is so damn smart, why is he bringing an indictment for something he can not prove? He just wasting time and lot of hot air at the expense of a person and the American citizens who will probably have to foot the bill.
That's what I call really, really dumb. Why are these types(Fitzgerald) in the positions they are in? It is obvious it is not for the good of the country.
Did Libby murder Plame? Nope. We don't even know if Plame was murdered.
Does Libby know who murdered Plame but won't talk? Nope. No one has suggested that Libby knows who murdered Plame.
What did Libby do?
Libby told the prosecutor that he first heard from a reporter that Plame was the NAME of someone who sent her husband overseas. (She "might have been" subsequently murdered.) Then they found some section in his personal notes where he says he first heard elsewhere (Cheney) that Plame was the NAME of someone who sent her husband overseas. (She might have been subsequently murdered.)
In my email, I have a note that I heard from FoxNews that someone named Chandra Levy might have been murdered by a Congressman. My wife says that "no, I heard from my wife that someone named Chandra Levy might have been murdered by a Congressman."
Now, I had nothing to do with the murder of Chandra Levy.
Should I be indicted? Should I go to jail? (Is this material?)
After all, those are conflicting statements about where I first heard that name.
Pray for W and Our Troops
These allegations have nothing whatsoever to do with Libby's recollections of his conversations with reporters, nor does this allegation that he lied under oath depend in any way upon the reporters' recollections about their conversations with Libby.http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/libbys-indictment-does-not-depend-upon.html
Since no report seems to be forthcoming, is there anyway to get the transcripts of Libby to see how the questions were posed (were they asked specifically to the reporters contact, or did you know on Y, no, gave documentation showing he knew on Y...or both...etc.)
Not until the trial. GJ testimony is saled, but will be available to the defendant in the course of the trial.
Yes, that was the point of the investigation; but it is not the point of the indictment.
According to Andy at The Corner at National Review, Plame's CIA employment was classified, and thus it appears that Libby may have thought he violated the espionage act (because he technically arguably did), and thus he had a motive to lie to the grand jury. His motive was to avoid admitting to one of the requisite elements of the espionage act, which is that one in his official capacity received the information one lawfully entitled to know (ie from Cheney), and then disclosed it an improper person, ie a reporter. By testifying that he learned it from a reporter, that avoids his admitting that he learned it in his official capacity from one entitled to know, and thus in his mind, admitting having committed a crime. In short, mystery solved. We have a motive.
I'm not clear that what you refer to -or any of the other bits and pieces we would like to see exposed- will- in fact be exposed. It looks as though these are narrow indictments- and specifically will only require a very few witnesses, i.e. Russert, Miller and Cooper- perhaps the VP. Since the only crimes alleged are in ref to when he knew about Plame, what he knew and from whom he knew it (that sound is my grammar teacher screeching).
The great wide-open, call the SOB's on the carpet spectacle that would REALLY clear the air doesn't seem will take place in this trial.
Superb piece by Mr. Levin. We are happily educated by him daily.
FYI...Levin follow up comment:
"ONE MORE THING [Mark Levin]
I feel there's some need for clarification. I have nothing but the highest regard for my friend Andy McCarthy, and his insight is both unique and always intelligent. Perhaps I appear as a special pleader for Lewis Libby. I am not. I don't know the man, and have never met him. But I do think we benefit from a good exchange on the facts and law, and not simply accept a prosecutor's allegations at face value. That's not how the legal system works. That's how litigation works. So, a one-side analysis is not a realistic analysis. It's not my intention to be one-sided, but to contribute to the excellent points Andy and others have and are making.
Obstruction in its various forms (perjury, false statements, etc.) is, of course, very serious. But at the present stage in Libby's case are charges not fact. If the charges are found to be true by a trial jury (assuming no plea agreement), then Libby, like anyone else, has committed very serious federal crimes. No one should downplay this, and I don't think most people are. But that's not to say Libby has committed criminal acts that have endangered the national security of this country. And this is where I found Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference over-the-top. I have now read through the transcript of his press conference, and come away even more troubled. I believe the impression he hoped to leave with the American people, most of whom won't bother to read the actual recitation of facts and actual charges in the indictment, is that Libby endangered his own country.
On another point, some are struggling with arguments that seek to draw parallels between Clinton and Libby respecting perjury. It is not my intention to dismiss all such analogies, but to point out at least one significant fact which, in our desire to be consistent should not be overlooked. Bill Clinton was actually held in contempt by Judge Susan Webber Wright. She made an actual finding that Clinton made "intentionally false statements" on several occasions during his sworn deposition testimony. As the judge noted in her ruling, Clinton had a right to a hearing to challenge her decision, in which he could provide testimony and evidence in his defense. Clinton chose not to. In other words, he accepted Judge Wright's finding without challenge. As a result, his law license was susupended for five years, he was forced to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, and he paid fines. In Libby's case, he is accused of prejury, false statements and obstruction. He has yet to defend. So, while the seriousness of the charges are not to be downplayed, they are merely charges and, at this point, nothing more. Some argue they are strong charges. They may well be. But we've yet to hear from Libby and his lawyers.
And, of course, this is all a far cry from Joe Wilson's allegation that Karl Rove outed his wife, a purported CIA covert agent, which is how all this began. In the end, we will learn that Rove was not Bob Novak's source, Plame was not covert, and Joe Wilson remains a liar.
Posted at 12:26 PM"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_23_corner-archive.asp#081194
Good stuff. Maybe you want to ping the list to this one.
Assuming Valarie's job was classified, how do we know Libby knew that her job was classified? Not all jobs in the CIA are classified. If Fitz was going to use the Espionage Act, he would also need to prove that Libby knowingly released classified info with intent to harm the U.S. The CIA's own damage assessment showed their was no damage (except maybe a new name plate for Valarie). The only intent that Libby had was to refute Wilson's lies.
If Libby wanted to avoid admitting he knew something, why not use the "I don't recall" or "I am not sure if it happened that way" and avoid false statements as well.
I would be amazed if Libby claims he knew that Plame worked for the CIA did not know Plame's status was classified.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I don't think so. First of all nothing changes, Libby knows that the other folks are gonna testify to the facts.
And second of all USC 18,793 and 794 both begin with this: "a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.....".
No way Fitzgerald could ever get a conviction with those words as the starting point.
This was politics, not espionage.
"I would be amazed if Libby claims he knew that Plame worked for the CIA did not know Plame's status was classified."
I heard she was a desk jockey.
(ok, I just had to say it ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.