Posted on 10/30/2005 6:30:57 AM PST by DogBarkTree
There is a cancer on the presidency, and it cannot be exorcised by the resignation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Libby, assistant to the president and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, has been indicted on five federal counts, including obstruction of justice, making false statement and perjury. The charges stem from the investigation into a leak disclosing that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a covert CIA operative.
Based on the allegations special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald laid out in the indictments Friday, it's increasingly evident that officials within the Bush administration disclosed Plame's identity as part of an effort to discredit Wilson's criticism of one of the pretexts for war against Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
HULLLOOOOO?>????!!!!! PLAME WAS OUTED BY HER OWN HUSBAND!!
of course, she had not been COVERT since the birth of her children and the onset of POST PARTEM DEPRESSION.
sheesh.
It is interesting to note that only one of the six choices exonerates the administration. Four of the choices implicate the administration in some way, and one simply downplays the importance of the issue.
And the leftists behind this think they are being clever.
When will news organizations going to realize that on-line non-scientific polls are crap?
No, he didn't admit that there was no underlying crime to trigger an investigation. He said that it was possible that a crime had been commited. Part of the job of the grand jury was to listen to evidence, testimony, and the wording of the law to determine if a indictable crime had possibly taken place. Fitz said that IT IS in fact possible that a crime had been commited but neither he nor the grand jury could determine because Libby's testimony did not mesh with a group of other testimonies. The Grand Jury then felt that he was being dishonest and indicted him for that.
Part of the reason for the upcoming Libby trial will be to determine the truth, if possible, and decide if Libby did in fact commit a crime. This matter, though, according to Fitz, would probably not be persued past the trial as the need for justice would be fulfilled by the decision at trial.
What I'd expect in pinko seattle. I mean, it's Washington, what does anyone expect? They kept counting and recounting votes last year until they got a democrat governor. That's what lib states are like. If you don't get your way, recount, manipulate, decive, do whatever you have to to make fact look the way you want it, not the way it truly is.
The logic fits for leftists. They are irrational. They vote and think based on feelings, not facts. Thus - the poll organizers, and those who respond, see nothing wrong with this poll.
You see something wrong - but you are not them are you? This is a simple demonstration of how their minds work.
They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in what makes them feel good. They "feel good" about "saving the environment" while driving heavy cars and SUVs with automatic transmissions all day (VW TDI has been on sale for a decade with nominal success.)
They are irrational. Expecting them to be rational is irrational.
Try as they may, this 'scandal' is now last week's news.
COOL! It's a start...
0.8% Bush, yes.
0.0% Bush, no.
13.6% Cheney, yes.
0.4% Cheney, no.
57.7% Both.
22.6% Neither.
5.0% It doesn't matter.
Total Votes: 522
Fitzgerald is close to the CIA from the 9-11 testimony where he along with the CIA questions why the media does not report relationships between the Sudan,Iraq and al-Qaeda from evidence he gathered.
Therefore Fitzgerald is there again blaming Miller aka media for not giving up her sources/information which would have saved him another year's work. Time was running out. $70 million was spent. The jury decided. Time for Libby's defense.
If you intentionally "think" you are outing an agent is a crime; even though she or he may have been outed on other occasions; which of course she was. Russett's testimony hurt Libby. Both considered men of integrity. Libby however may be a "straw man".
The P-I is not a serious newspaper, except for use as a fish wrapper.
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
If Libby would have told the Special Prosecutor, "The V.P. told me (perfectly legal by the way as both the V.P. and his chief of staff hold high enough security clearances) and I told the reporters, but I didn't think it was a crime, due to the fact that she had a public marriage to a public figure." then I don’t think the investigation would have gone any further.
The reason he wasn't charged with outing a spy is because there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with such. The reason there isn't enough evidence to charge him with that crime is because it is highly possible that he has horribly impeded the investigation into the above charges. Impeding the process through supposed lies and deception is the crime he's being charged with.
As far as the Protection of Identities Statute goes, it protects only covert agents. Because official, non-official cover, or the depth of cover are never mentioned in the statute it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I thought that Fitzgerald did an outstanding job of explaining this. It is absolutely possible that it is a crime to identify Plame as an agent, if the intent of the act was to blow her cover, even though it is possible that she would not have been effective because of her public status. It is also possible that identifying Plame was not a crime if the act was done under the assumption that she was already a public figure and background was being provided.
Crime (not actual conversations): Libby, "Hey Novak, got some info for you. You know that lady that you sometimes see in pictures with Wilson and noone knows who it is. It's because that's his wife, an undercover CIA Agent named Valerie Plame."
Not a Crime: Novak, "Is Wilson married?"
Libby, "Yeah, I just found out yesterday while we were doing some background."
Novak, "What's her name?"
Libby, "Valerie Plame."
Novak, "Does she have a job or does she sit around the house?"
Libby, "No, she works with the CIA."
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
If Libby would have told the Special Prosecutor, "The V.P. told me (perfectly legal by the way as both the V.P. and his chief of staff hold high enough security clearances) and I told the reporters, but I didn't think it was a crime, due to the fact that she had a public marriage to a public figure." then I don’t think the investigation would have gone any further.
The reason he wasn't charged with outing a spy is because there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with such. The reason there isn't enough evidence to charge him with that crime is because it is highly possible that he has horribly impeded the investigation into the above charges. Impeding the process through supposed lies and deception is the crime he's being charged with.
As far as the Protection of Identities Statute goes, it protects only covert agents. Because official, non-official cover, or the depth of cover are never mentioned in the statute it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I thought that Fitzgerald did an outstanding job of explaining this. It is absolutely possible that it is a crime to identify Plame as an agent, if the intent of the act was to blow her cover, even though it is possible that she would not have been effective because of her public status. It is also possible that identifying Plame was not a crime if the act was done under the assumption that she was already a public figure and background was being provided.
Crime (not actual conversations): Libby, "Hey Novak, got some info for you. You know that lady that you sometimes see in pictures with Wilson and noone knows who it is. It's because that's his wife, an undercover CIA Agent named Valerie Plame."
Not a Crime: Novak, "Is Wilson married?"
Libby, "Yeah, I just found out yesterday while we were doing some background."
Novak, "What's her name?"
Libby, "Valerie Plame."
Novak, "Does she have a job or does she sit around the house?"
Libby, "No, she works with the CIA."
The charges stem from the investigation into a leak disclosing that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a covert CIA operative.
The correct answer "your push poll is full-o-$hit.
Starting with an unproven inflammatory cliche and going on to say that Plame's "covert" status was was disclosed (and by inference proved)in the investigation is an outright lie.
The only cancer is on the profession of journalism.
Done...just to piss them off :)
Did he say that to the grand jury? If he did, then why hasn't he been indicted for lying to a grand jury, too?
"The only cancer is on the profession of journalism."
Has anyone noticed that the MSM have suddenly forgotten one of their favorite words when describing people accused of crimes?
Allegedly....i have not heard it once with regard to Rove or Libby.
Proposal:
(1) Immediate pardon of Scooter Libby - President Bush then quietly nominates Janice Rogers Brown as the next Associate Justice.
(2) Karl Rove "resigns" and is also pardoned in advance. Bush spotlights his famous loyalty - by refusing to accept Rove's resignation, Rove now out of hot seat, continues to provide excellent advice. :)
(3) President Bush calls press conference this afternoon to announce the pardons, his nominee, and declares CLEARLY it's time to move forward together and stop the partisan bickering.
(he really needs to say that)
(4) Vice President Cheney - who's amazing and deserves the gratitude of all Americans for all the things he's done for us, should find an excuse to bow out and return home - setting the stage for Condoleezza Rice to step into the role.
(5) Jeb Bush / Condoleezza Rice 2008
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.