« "Jesus Would Be Disappointed" -- John Edwards | Main | Wizbang Podcast #57 is up »

When it says Libby, Libby, Libby, on the verdict, verdict, verdict...

...then Scooter, Scooter, Scooter is a convict, convict, convict.

I'm sorry, but I've been saving that line since the whole trial began.

Now that the trial is over (not counting the inevitable appeals), I think it's time to take a hard look at certain facts of the whole matter.

1) Absolutely no law was broken in the publication that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The proof of this is self-evident. The "leaker" of Plame's identity has been clearly and undisputably identified as Richard Armitage. If the release of that information was a crime, then Armitage would be in legal trouble. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has stated that there will be no charges against Armitage. Therefore, the revelation that Plame worked for the CIA was not a crime.

2) Joseph Wilson lied in his Op-Ed piece for the New York Times.

Wilson said said in the Times that he found "no evidence" that Iraq was seeking uranium from Nigeria. Wilson also said, in sworn testimony, that he had discovered that Iraq had sought to "establish commercial relations" with Nigeria -- and uranium is pretty much the only Nigerian export that Iraq would have been interested in.

3) Joseph Wilson lied about who behind his mission to Africa.

Wilson said that the vice-president's office arranged for his visit. It has become clear that his wife, in what appears to be an act of nepotism, pushed him for the assignment.

4) As has been repeatedly cited, over and over and over again, Libby was accused of (and now convicted of) lying about telling the truth about a liar.

Libby was not convicted of violating any laws regarding the exposure of Valerie Plame (who had already been "outed" years ago by the traitor Aldrich Ames). He was not convicted of lying about Wilson's mission, Wilson's reports (either his classified one, or the contradictory one he gave to the New York Times), or protecting the leaker of Plame's identity.

5) Libby was convicted of lying to investigators of an event that, in the end, established that there was no crime committed at its core.

Libby was not charged with committing a crime that occurred before Fitzgerald began his investigation. (Correction (well, more of a weasel): "Libby was not charged with a single crime related to the actual "outing" of Plame, but rather in the investigation that followed it. The results of that investigation are self-evident, as pointed out above." The specific mention of "Fitzgerald" was something I did not verify, and I should have just glossed around the specifics and focused on the point -- the Libby charges stemmed not from the actual leak, but the investigation into them.) In fact, had Libby simply gotten his story straight when questioned by investigators, there would likely have been no charges filed in the whole matter. It's a progression of the old aphorism -- "it's not the crime, but the coverup" -- into "even if there is no crime, covering it up will still get you."

So, that's that for facts. Now for some opinion.

A) On the one hand, Libby appears to have knowingly and willingly lied to federal investigators, and that is intolerable. A message has to be sent that some things can not and will not be accepted.

That could be a tough sell. Courts tend to be swayed by precedent, even bad ones, and Libby's lawyers can point to a couple of similar cases where the accused was treated very leniently.

In the 1990's, Bill Clinton freely admitted that he had lied under oath in a civil lawsuit, using the cloak of "privacy" to shelter his liability for violating sexual harassment laws while governor of Arkansas. In that matter, it was determined that while he had indeed violated the laws against perjury, they did not rise to the level of being an impeachable event.

And in just the last few years, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was convicted of stealing and destroying highly-classified material from the National Archives related to the Clinton Administration's efforts against terrorism, and how they might have affected the 9/11 attacks. Berger, who could (and should) have been charged with treason, was let off with little more than a wrist slap -- a fine and loss of his security clearance until just before the next presidential election.

On the other hand, I don't like following bad examples -- I prefer correcting them. I also don't like quoting Bill O'Reilly, but he has an aphorism that fits very well here: "you don't justify bad behavior by citing other bad behavior." The final dispositions of the Clinton and Berger matters were wrong, and should not -- under any circumstance -- be used to perpetuate treating major matters so lightly.

I really don't know. So much of Libby's culpability depend on people's memories and recollections that have been repeatedly proven unreliable. Had I been on the jury, I think I would have voted for acquittal, because I think there's enough "reasonable doubt" to chalk it up to something besides intent. But I didn't hear all the testimony, and I wasn't there.

B) Why, oh why, is Joseph Wilson still given any shred of credibility? He started out by lying about the results of his trip, and has been lying -- or just plain wrong -- pretty much since. He said he wanted to see Karl Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House by police, and it turns out Rove was most likely uninvolved. He said his wife was "outed" by the White House, when it turns out to have been a State Department drone (Armitage puts the "dip" in "diplomat") who was no friend of the Bush Administration. And after Libby was convicted, he said that there was "nothing personal" about the whole matter.

Bull -- Wilson has done everything he can to portray himself and his wife as innocent victims of a grand political scheme. Instead, he was a partisan hack who used his wife's position to garner himself a self-aggrandizing assignment, then tried to leverage that into a position as a hero of the anti-war movement. In the process, he lied, misled, and slung enough mud to fulfill every negative stereotype of diplomats and politicians. And now he and his wife are slated for celluloid immortality, as Hollywood is rushing to capture their "saga" on the silver screen. I suspect it will have about as much resemblance to the real events as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

If Hollywood had any integrity at all, Wilson would be portrayed by Jon Lovitz in his "Tommy Flanagan" persona:

"I went to Niger to see if Iraq was trying to buy uranium, and... they weren't. Actually, they were looking to... sell sand to Nigeria. Yeah, that's the ticket! It wasn't Niger, it was Nigeria! They were tired of having all that desert, so they were gonna box it all up and trade to the Nigerians in exchange for a share of this dead guy's estate. You see, this wealthy Iraqi died in a plane crash in Nigeria, and he had no family, so this Iraqi guy was going to pretend to be his nephew and this Nigerian lawyer was going to give him a third of the dead Iraqi's $30-million-dollar estate."

C) This is yet another case of criminalizing politics and policy. Fitzgerald's first act should have been to establish whether or not a crime was committed, not to reconstruct every single thing that happened. Only after it was proven that there was a crime at the core of the whole matter, then -- and only then -- should have the full investigation proceeded. We don't let the regular authorities go on fishing expeditions like this one; special prosecutors shouldn't be granted this privilege.

Of course, that doesn't excuse Libby's apparent lying. But had Fitzgerald done things properly, the investigation would have ended long before Libby was interviewed, and this whole thing would never have happened.

One thing, though, is pretty clear: the whole mess ends with Libby. Fitzgerald has stated, repeatedly, that the only crime he uncovered in the whole sorry mess was Libby's lying to investigators. There was no crime at the core of the matter, no signs that there was a grand conspiracy to "out" Plame (who committed gross nepotism and abuse of her position by pushing for her husband to get the Niger mission) or "discredit" Wilson (apart from simply pointing out his two contradictory stories), and no orchestrated cover-up behind the whole thing.

It's all just so damned stupid and pointless.


Comments (103)

"Berger, who could (and sho... (Below threshold)

"Berger, who could (and should) have been charged with treason"

Ugh... Treason (from Article III, Section 3) "shall consist only in levying war against [the United States] or in adhering to [her] enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Berger is probably guilty of some flavor of espionage or other grave sin of handling classified documents (of which there are many, and the punishments are severe), but not treason. 24 always makes that mistake... someone does something bad, it's treason. Disobey your boss, treason! Piss off Jack Bauer, treason!

Who leaked Plame's name was... (Below threshold)
kim:

Who leaked Plame's name was herself or her husband to Kristoff in May if not sooner.

I don't believe Libby lied. I believe he had a moment of insight during his conversation with Russert which explains the 'as if for the first time'. Russert has perjured himself with his statement that it was impossible for Plame to come up in the conversation. Both prosecution and defense have stipulated that he was more ambiguous in his first interview with the FBI, with Eckenrode, who's notes have disappeared.

Libby first heard about Plame from Cheney on June 12 when she was identified as the low level CIA person who sent the Ambassador to Africa. Then he and Cheney forgot about her until well after Wilson's July 6th op-ed and when they did snap to it she was the wife of the lying critic. Fitz still doesn't understand this distinction, and from his feeble imagination has sprouted a chimerical conspiracy.

Libby is innocent and it will be so shown. NBC has jumped the shark and Russert's blood is in the water.
==============================

Berger very likely stole in... (Below threshold)
kim:

Berger very likely stole information that is still critical for our safety, if only for appreciation of how casual the Clinton administration was about al Qaeda. That's aid and comfort. Ditto for Joe Wilson. I'm wondering about Sir Richard.
========================

Look, people are still dyin... (Below threshold)
kim:

Look, people are still dying because of the lies of Ambassador Joe Wilson, the deceptions of Sir Richard Armitage, and the resentment of Secretary Powell, who, if that's the source of his silence, will rot in a deserved Hell.
===================

Repeat a lie long enough an... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes fact to the lefties.

How a journalist got on the jury who is also a neighbor to Tim Russert is beyond me. If I were Libby, I would ask for my retainer to be refunded. ww

AughtSix, I used to agree w... (Below threshold)

AughtSix, I used to agree with you. I even wrote a lengthy piece about the dilution of the term "treason."

But Berger's stealing and destruction of prior investigations and actions taken against terrorism, even if not intended as such, were a material benefit to the terrorists who we are at war with. It might be a stretch to classify it as "treason," but it's a stretch I'm willing to make.

J.

The political spin from the... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

The political spin from the left and the Democrats on this is incredible.
First, despite having been exposed as a liar of the first water, Wilson is still being quoted by the media.
Second, the meme that he was a "fall guy" for the Bush administration is widespread, although there happens to be no proof, no evidence, not a hint that there was any activity by the WH in regards to this. This, from the same people who did not connect the dots during the Clinton administration when all of Clinton's critics were subjected to IRS audits.
Third, the wailing and rending of garments over the "exposure of a covert agent" and how the WH is callously exposing the CIA for political gain. But why no mention of the CIA exposure of national security programs and also the exposure of covert operatives who flew the rendition flights? All this moaning is obviously politically motivated. Either ALL these exposures should evoke outrage, or it means that Dems would sacrifice national security for political power. The latter is the only logical conclusion that one can reach.
Bah!

Also, as I understand it, t... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Also, as I understand it, the CIA typically requires its liason's that undertake tasks such as Wilson's to sign an agreement that they will not discussion the tasks publicly. Apparently, for some reason, Wilson wasn't required to sign the agreement.

If the above is true, it brings further questions as to the reason behind the selection of Joe Wilson for the Niger task.

ww, that neighbor, Denis Co... (Below threshold)
kim:

ww, that neighbor, Denis Collins, also terribly mischaracterizes Cheney's marginalia of Wilson's op-ed and uses that as a basis for believing that Libby is lying. He also says the case depended upon the disjunct between Russert's and Libby's stories about their conversation, and I've maintained that Russert perjured himself over that.

I also believe that Collins hid enough in voir dire and reasoned outside the evidence enough to collapse the case on jury misbehaviour.
==============================

Speaking of stretching, j, ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Speaking of stretching, j, I've maintained for years, now, that Berger should be hanged by his thumbs 'til he talks. The knowledge he is concealing is still critical to our safety. Look how sensitive Bill is to this stuff.
===========================

The biggest crime in all of... (Below threshold)
Casey:

The biggest crime in all of this is the huge waste of taxpayers money spent to trying to find something to prosecute after finding that the original "crime" (outing Plame) was not a crime.
Fitz should be charged with theft.

Fitz will get his comeuppan... (Below threshold)
kim:

Fitz will get his comeuppance, yet. He fooled the jury, and all the moonbats, but none of the judges and lawyers in the world. Read Jeralyn Merritt, as leftist as they come, but also a defense attorney. She doesn't believe Fitz proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. She's no slouch, either, only honcha at TalkLeft.
=============================

Also, as I understand it, L... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Also, as I understand it, Libby lied.

The last few days' "dance of a thousand screaming winguts" has been a wonderful prelude to the civil trial that lies ahead. The VIce-President of the United States on the witness stand -- HOO-YAH!

excerpt from the civil complaint:

"The lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of one such human source at the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson, whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer, and who risked her life for her country."

"The Defendants reached an agreement to discredit, punish, and seek revenge against the Plaintiffs.... Said agreement was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for going to war with Iraq."

"The Defendants chose not to address publicly, directly, and on the merits why they may have thought Mr. Wilson was wrong or unfair in his statements on the President's misstatements. Rather, they embarked on an anonymous 'whispering campaign' designed to discredit and injure the Plaintiffs and to deter other critics from publicly speaking out."

"But for Mr. Wilson coming forward, it is unlikely that the Administration ever would have acknowledged its error. The fact that the administration had to admit its mistake is one likely reason why the Defendants chose to attack the Wilsons"

"The Defendants fraudulently concealed the existence of the Plaintiffs' cause of action . . . by, among other things, giving false or misleading testimony to federal law enforcement personnel and/or the federal grand jury empanelled to investigate the unlawful publication of Plaintiff Valerie Plame Wilson's classified CIA employment...."

GUILTY!

"Libby was not charged with... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Libby was not charged with committing a crime that occurred before Fitzgerald began his investigation." By Jay

Count 2, false statement: The grand jury charges that Libby "did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement'' in an FBI investigation. Specifically, the indictment says Libby misled FBI agents in response to questions about a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.

Count 3, false statement: Libby is charged with misleading FBI agents about his July 2003 conversation with reporter Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

Jay, since you lied about the above, you must have lied about ever thing else in your "rant". I think you have been tainted by the lies of the Bush administration which you so dearly love.

Lee, the judge in the civil... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee, the judge in the civil case is Bates. He'll not stand for that nonsense. By the way, read Cheney's move to quell the subpoena. Note, too, that expenses have been incurred by the defendents, damages for the countersuit now exist. I wonder if Chemerinsky is still on board.

Barney, sure, a technicality, but where is Eckenrode, where are his notes, where are Gregory and Mitchell to confirm, or not, Russert's story.

I'm a little worried about one thing and that is that Imus is on to NBC's scam and fraud, and he had Russert on this AM throwing soft pitches to Russert's canned at bat. Disturbing.

But I hear Fox has revelations.
===========================

Yeah! Libby isn't guilty!!... (Below threshold)
redfacedrepub:

Yeah! Libby isn't guilty!!! How dare a jury of his peers look at all of the evidence and convict him using the guidelines set forth by the laws of the US. Anyone with just half a brain knows that it's only crazy moonbat liberals that lie and are immoral. Show me, just show me one single Rebulican hero and patriot who's ever told a single lie. We all know that it's NEVER happened. Besides, it's obvious that everything that's wrong with this country is the fault of Bill and Hillary Çlinton!

I'm so sick of the left always trying to smear true patriots like George Bush or Dick Cheney when all they've ever done is unselfishly tried to protect us from Osama bin Laden and the left-wing. I mean, I really don't care if there were no weapons of mass destruction, or if Cheney has become rich off his no-contract bids that were awarded to Halliburton. Doesn't Cheney deserve it after almost sacrificing his life in the Vietnam War? And George Bush could've been killed in Alabama for Christ's sake - why can't the intellectual elite just understand that? There aren't truer patriots on the whole planet!

I don't care about the facts they try and push on you in the liberal press. I never let them get in the way of believeing what I want to believe - that's why everyone should only listen to Rush Limbaugh. And I can't wait for the day when George Bush is appointed dictator of the free world. It's the way it should be, and we all know it. God bless George Bush. God bless Dick Cheney. God bless torturing prisoners in the name of democracy. And God bless America!

Joe Lied?Here is J... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Joe Lied?

Here is Joe Wilson's own words on the Iraq Mission:
Mayaki, who earlier had served as Foreign Minister, recounted to me that he immediately wondered if uranium would be on the agenda and was determined to avoid the topic in the meeting because, as he pointed out, uranium sales would violate UN sanctions. A country as dependent on foreign assistance for its very survival, Niger could literally not afford to offend the international community, even if it wanted to, he noted.

**The subject of uranium was never raised in the meeting. Indeed, it was nothing more than a courtesy call. Mayaki did not mention whether other commercial issues might have been raised, though it is common knowledge that Iraq often tried to leverage cheap oil for better relations.


Here is an account of the "trade" mission by Iraq Ambassador, Al Zahawie:
He had been sent to Niger -- as well as Benin, Burkina-Faso and Congo-Brazzaville -- he explains, as part of an effort to convince African heads of state to visit Iraq. Such visits would break the embargo on flights to the country, and Baghdad hoped this would undermine the UN sanctions regime. The inspiration for the project, al-Zahawie suspects, had been recent visits by African leaders to Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi, which had broken the embargo on flights to that country.

"I took it to be a routine assignment," al-Zahawie notes. "I had done this sort of thing before, and I was senior in the foreign ministry." Plus, it was easier for al-Zahawie to do it from Rome than for any diplomat to come out of Baghdad.

Niger had been his first stop, where he spent an hour speaking with then President Ibrahim Bare Mainassara. Mainassara greeted al-Zahawie warmly, and turned out to be the only leader on his itinerary to accept Baghdad's invitation, promising to visit Saddam in April. The next day, al-Zahawie left to continue his trip, and was back at the Holy See in a matter of days.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,491666,00.html?internalid=ACA

SO let me get this this straight, Joe lied because he report the comment by Mayaki about Makaki's assumption of the nature of the meeting. The meeting takes place (in 1999) and both Mayaki and Al-Zahawie state yellowcake was not discussed. There were no follow-up meeting, or any attempt to purchase yellowcake

Joe said he found "no evidence". I do not see any evidence. Do you?

And it's too bad that Judge... (Below threshold)
kim:

And it's too bad that Judge Bates is going to quell the subpoenas in the civil suit on May 17. It might be nice to have Joe Wilson under oath. Fitz will yet regret that he never took that precaution.
=============================

Yeah, Iraqi trade delegate ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Yeah, Iraqi trade delegate making a trip & meeting in Niger where the only exports are uranium and goats. Nope, no evidence there.

BG2, the CIA clearly agreed... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, the CIA clearly agreed that the sum total effect of Wilson's oral report after his trip was a slight confirmation of the idea that Iraq was interested in Niger Yellow Cake. Any suggestion otherwise is lying propaganda. You could look it up.
======================

rfr, you're a rfraud. What... (Below threshold)
kim:

rfr, you're a rfraud. What good will sarcasm do you when they ask you about Allah?
============================

"Wilson said that the vice-... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Wilson said that the vice-president's office arranged for his visit." By Jay

Another total F'ing lie by Jay. Here is what Joe wrote:

Joe's Times Op-ed
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Where did he say the VP office "ARANGED" for the visit?

Kim:How dare you c... (Below threshold)
redfacedrepub:

Kim:

How dare you call me a fraud. I am a card carrying member of the John Birch Society, and a lifelong Republican. In fact, you're way too liberal for my taste. It's about time true Republicans stand up and get rid of the left-leaning people like Kim who claim that they're on our side. She's the fraud.

God bless Richard Nixon. God bless George Bush. God bless Walter Reed Army Hospital. God bless Strom Thurmond, and God bless America.

BG2, the CIA clearly agreed... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

BG2, the CIA clearly agreed that the sum total effect of Wilson's oral report after his trip was a slight confirmation of the idea that Iraq was interested in Niger Yellow Cake. by Kim

WRONG, the SSCI report said some agents, while other agents including State and DIA agreed with Joe.

Also, why did Tenet pull the Iraq/Niger link form the Cincy speech?

If the CIA was so convinced, why did Bush say British Intelligence and not US intelligence?

We've been over this before... (Below threshold)
kim:

We've been over this before, Barney, you don't make a good ostrich. The tracks you leave betray your human errancy. Joe was the source for Kristoff's and Pincus's stories. I told you to compare those with Joe's work, and what he leaves out of his own are the lies he told them. The WaPo has corrected the worst of Pincus's misrepresentations; the Old Grey Lady ain't for Kristoff.
=====================

Kim, I also heard that if t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Kim, I also heard that if the civil suit goes forward, Cheney, et,al will counter sue Wilson and Plame for setting up the whole scheme to discredit the administration. It will be nice to see Joe Wilson go into debt with lawyers fees.

To you lefties: Who was charged and convicted of "outing" Plame? Who? Where is the evidence. I must have missed it. ww

GUILTY <a href="http... (Below threshold)
Joe said he found ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Joe said he found "no evidence". I do not see any evidence. Do you?

I think you mistakenly cut your sentence short.

I believe you meant to say, I do not see any evidence "other than what the CIA and Intelligence Committee" reported.

No need to thank me....since I'm just here to help.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
People on this blog used to... (Below threshold)
frank:

People on this blog used to think lying to a jury was a very big deal.

redfacedrepub,Ther... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

redfacedrepub,

There's already a Stephen Colbert, there's no need for another. He's funny, you're not, try and add something to the discussion rather than "satire".

"See, in my line of work... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

"See, in my line of work you have to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propoganda." (George W.Bush May 2005, New York)

Libby lied to protect the propogandists.

PERIOD.

rfr, la ilaha illallah, Moh... (Below threshold)
kim:

rfr, la ilaha illallah, Mohamudar rasullallah to you.

Barney, those are actually good questions. I said the total effect was slightly confirm Iraqi interest in African Yellow Cake. You agree there was disagreement, so where do you get the idea Wilson debunked it for the CIA.

The sixteen words should not have been removed. They were true. This was a grevious tactical error by the White House.

British Intelligence has always known more about Africa than have we. So have the French. They are both fully aware that artisanal mining of Uranium ore was being done at mines shuttered by the drop in the commodity price of nuclear fuel during the 90's. It is technically a piece of cake to convert ore to Yellow Cake, and transport, particularly across remote borders, like with Libya, easy. Go look at a map.
================================

I didn't think I would be s... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

I didn't think I would be surprised by the lengths some Bush water carriers would go to defend Libby but I was wrong. When did it become ok to lie to a grand jury? Hint: the answer is it isn't ok.

Sorry, but Clinton did not ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Sorry, but Clinton did not lie during his deposition. The definition of "sex" as provided by the Paula Jones lawyers did not include oral sex. See Here

During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones' lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

0. 1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

0. 2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or

0. 3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

0. Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

A lengthy debate followed between the two teams of lawyers. It turned out points 2 and 3 were too broad: anyone accidentally brushing their hips against another person could be accused of having "sex." Judge Susan Webber Wright therefore eliminated points 2 and 3. However, notice that point 3 would have clearly included oral sex performed on Clinton. Its removal set the stage for the controversy to follow.

The Jones' lawyers then asked Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on the remaining definition.
Unfortunately, the definition still contained ambiguities. Who are the "persons" mentioned in the definition? Clinton interpreted it this way:
0. "For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

0. 1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

0. Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.

Was it sneaky, yes, but this was deposition, and in a deposition you have to answerer the questions as the questions are defined, and by the Jone lawyers own definition, Clinton did not have sex with Monica, Monica had sex with him

If Clinton did commit perjury, why wasn't he indicted? Why was he found innocent in the Senate?

Uh, Jay. I agree with you, ... (Below threshold)

Uh, Jay. I agree with you, but please fix your post. Nigeria is where my father is from. Niger is what Joe Wilson lied about.

So when did it become OK fo... (Below threshold)
kim:

So when did it become OK for Russert to lie on the stand. He testified under oath that it was impossible for him to talk about Plame in his conversation with Libby. However, both prosecution and defense have stipulated that in his first interview with the FBI's Eckenrode, he was a great deal more ambiguous, saying that he wasn't certain. The notes of that interview are lost. Eckenrode didn't take the stand, nor did Gregory and Mitchell who probably knew about Plame and probably told Russert. Look, Andrea Mitchell had Wilson on Meet the Press on July 6th and I'm supposed to believe that the regular host there didn't know about Plame until 8 days later? You moonbats, and your credulity. I mean, now you're even forced to believe in Joe Wilson's credibility and even John Kerry figured that out after the SSCI revealed Joe's 'Literary Flair'.
============================

What a deceptive post. Thes... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

What a deceptive post. These constant repetitions of lies and half truths by the right may make you guys feel good, but they don't change the facts.

1. "Absolutely no law was broken." Says who? Prosecutors don't charge everyone they think is guilty of wrongdoing, they charge people they think they can convict. If Armitage portrays his comments to Woodward as an inadvertent slip (the statute says "intentionally reveals") backed up by the fact that he voluntarily admitted doing it once he realized what happened, then it may be difficult to win a conviction. Also, despite what the right would have us believe, just because Armitage mentioned the information to one person who never wrote about it doesn't mean the information is automatically declassified and can be broadcast by anyone without penalty. Armitage didn't give Libby a free pass.

In addition, this portrayal of Armitage as somehow separate from the administration is specious. Describing him as "no friend of the administration" is more than a little misleading. He wasn't Ralph Nader or Howard Dean. He was a high ranking official in the Bush administration. He knew about Plame because the White House was circulating at least one document containing the information. He wasn't some lone actor going off the reservation. Several members of the administration were involved in disseminating this information. Just because Armitage was the first doesn't let everyone else off the hook.

2. Another oft repeated lie. Wilson said he met with the former PM of Niger, who told him about a meeting with Iraqis that he presumed would be about yellowcake, but that the subject never came up. You don't have to speculate about what the Iraqis really wanted. They actually had the meeting and didn't mention yellowcake. The right likes to go on about how Niger has no other exports, but the fact remains that the only thing that ties that meeting to yellowcake is that the former PM presumed that was the purpose of the meeting. That's hardly evidence that Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Niger. So no, Wilson didn't find any evidence.

3. Boy, this is a lie you guys have been repeating for so long I'm sure some of you actually believe it. Read the op-ed again. Wilson said the VP's office asked for more information. That's it. He never said they asked for someone to go to Niger, and he certainly never said the VP's office had any knowledge of Wilson's existence. The right likes to fall back on the claim that Wilson "implied" Cheney sent him, but that's BS. He was very plain in his column, and in subsequent interviews flatly stated that the VP's office didn't send him. I'd like to see someone actually back up this fallacious claim.

4. Another fact the right likes to conveniently gloss over is that Libby wasn't just convicted of perjury, but of obstruction of justice, as well. Comparing this to Clinton admitting perjury about a personal matter in a civil suit is ridiculous. I might also point out that Clinton never was convicted of or pleaded guilty to perjury. I grant that he undoubtedly committed perjury, but comparing that case to a four count conviction in Federal Court about a national security issue is quite skewed.

The obstruction of justice charge can't be taken lightly. A guy gets convicted of interfering with an investigation of a crime, and his supporters say he should be let off because the investigation he interfered with was unsuccessful. That's up-is-down thinking at its finest.

The comparisons to Sandy Berger are also specious. What he did was wrong, and he was convicted of a misdemeanor. The notes that he took were copies, and several people have testified that all of the originals are still in the possession of the government.

And by the way, it has not been established that Plame was the one who sent Wilson to Niger. A State Department official attended a meeting at CIA, and assumed that Plame had sent Wilson. He never said that he knew this for a fact, and people in the CIA have denied it. If you want to believe it, fine, but please don't portray it as established fact.

Also, this statement is an illuminating look at the way you twist the facts to fit your story line: "Fitzgerald has stated, repeatedly, that the only crime he uncovered in the whole sorry mess was Libby's lying to investigators. There was no crime at the core of the matter..." Those two statements don't follow logically. Fitzgerald didn't find enough evidence to charge others with crimes. This does not mean that it's proven that no crimes were committed. It means he couldn't make a case. Granted, it doesn't prove that crimes were committed, either. But saying that it has been established that no other crimes were committed is misleading, at best.

Here's the real kicker to me: "it turns out Rove was most likely uninvolved." Huh? Rove admitted discussing Plame's identity with Cooper. He appeared before the grand jury five times, each time revising his testimony as he "remembered" more facts. The jury, after hearing all of the evidence, weanted to know why Rove wasn't indicted. I frankly don't see where this statement even comes from.

I suppose, Barney, Clinton ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I suppose, Barney, Clinton was disbarred for not lying.

Sometimes I wonder about you. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
=============================

Kim, nice spin, but you sai... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim, nice spin, but you said "the CIA clearly agreed".

If the CIA clearly agreed, why did Tenet pull the reference from the Cincy speech, and why would Bush have to refer to British intelligence and not CIA intelligence if the CIA "Clearly" agreed that Saddam sought to purchase uranium from Niger?

Why didn't Colin P mention any of this in his UN speech? If there was ever a time or place to bring to light this "fact" it would have been at the UN (the Case for War speech)?

Rove was Novak's source, an... (Below threshold)
kim:

Rove was Novak's source, and probable heard about Plame from Hohlt, who heard about it from Novak, thus causing circularity and confirming Fitz in his belief that there was a conspiracy to out Plame. Novak, of course, got it from Armitage, who told Woodward that 'fucking Joe Wilson' had outed his own wife. Get it? It was on tape for the jury, that misbehaving bunch of so and so's. I'd like to know about the art curator. Whose blog was she reading?

I suspect a rightwing one that has the truth, such as JustOneMinute. Let's find out?
=========================

Guilty. So what? New trial.... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Guilty. So what? New trial. Appeal. Years. Ta Da! PARDON. Case closed.
Ever notice how old p'p' just loves his inclosed box quotes? lol
b'gaale1013 is beyond words.(which he has plenty of that make no sense) Typical moonbat tho.

OK, it is clear that the CI... (Below threshold)
kim:

OK, it is clear that the CIA considered Wilson's report a net plus to the idea that Iraq was interested in Nigerien yellowcake. Precision in wording is the mark of precision in thought and you rightly correct me on that point.

I've said before the sixteen words should not have been retracted. They are true.

Didn't Powell talk about this at the UN, at least obliquely. I've thought that his resentment at his perceived sellout might have kept him silent as this Plame affair unfolded to further and further damage to the Administration. That's why he's out, now. Sir Richard, too.
==================

And it is you who is spinni... (Below threshold)
kim:

And it is you who is spinning the point, Barney. The intelligence from the CIA was very poor, that's part of the problem. But the only mention in Joe's report of yellowcake was a slight boost to the idea that Iraq was interested. This is documented. For you to ignore that is deliberate ignorance, and ennuying.
================================

Furthermore, in his contemp... (Below threshold)
kim:

Furthermore, in his contemporaneous oral report, Joe said nothing about debunking a forgery. That all came later when it was convenient.

You believe fast truth here, you've purchased your beliefs at a convenience store. They'll make you sick, soon, when you know the truth.
==================

Look, I'm a convert, and th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Look, I'm a convert, and there is no believer like a convert. Before the war I was in the 20% who believed that no-fly zones and UN inspections were controlling the threat. I have changed my mind because of Duelfer writing about Saddam's intentions, and Rossett's writing about the Oil-for-Food finance scandal. Saddam needed to be removed whether or not he had WMD, and nobody knew for sure.

Don't you remember? lt's geschribben.
=======================

Clinton did not h... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Clinton did not have sex with Monica, Monica had sex with him

Thanks for that "blast" from the past. For someone not actually having sex it sure was a "stain" on the Clinton legacy.

It's just too bad everyone didn't "swallow" that whole sticky affair.

I see that no one on the ri... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I see that no one on the right has challenged point that Jay lied in his post. By Jay's own standards, we can not believe anything he has ever written or will write.

You are a liar Jay.

"Libby was not charged with committing a crime that occurred before Fitzgerald began his investigation." By Jay

Count 2, false statement: The grand jury charges that Libby "did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement'' in an FBI investigation. Specifically, the indictment says Libby misled FBI agents in response to questions about a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.

Count 3, false statement: Libby is charged with misleading FBI agents about his July 2003 conversation with reporter Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

Jay, since you lied about the above, you must have lied about ever thing else in your "rant". I think you have been tainted by the lies of the Bush administration which you so dearly love.

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 7, 2007 08:54 AM

Also:
"Wilson said that the vice-president's office arranged for his visit." By Jay

Another total F'ing lie by Jay. Here is what Joe wrote:

Joe's Times Op-ed
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Where did he say the VP office "ARANGED" for the visit?

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 7, 2007 09:27 AM


Jay, you have no credibility!

So when did it become OK... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

So when did it become OK for Russert to lie on the stand.

It isn't. When he gets convicted of perjury by a jury of his peers I will condemn him as much as I condemn Libby.

BN, stipulated evidence per... (Below threshold)
kim:

BN, stipulated evidence perjures Russert. It's from the 'lost' notes.

Barney, you fail to accumulate knowledge. I've agreed that Libby's interview with Eckenrode predated Fitz's appointment. Big deal. And Joe or Val told Pincus and Kristoff that Cheney sent him. The WaPo retracted, the NYT not. This is the third time I've told you. Ennuying.
========================

I mean, fundamentally, prop... (Below threshold)
kim:

I mean, fundamentally, propaganda is always boring, and you are full of it.
===========================

When he gets convicted o... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

When he gets convicted of perjury by a jury of his peers I will condemn him as much as I condemn Libby.

Hmm. So only people found guilty are worthy of being condemned, and those not charged or not yet convicted are clean as a whistle.

I pretty much convicted Libby of being an idiot when the original charges broke, but didn't make any predictions as to the verdict.

But I guess the standard is "found guilty by jury=definitely guilty, not found guilty by jury=100% innocent."

When's OJ's next movie?

Hey k, where do you get the... (Below threshold)
Knock, knock, who's there?:

Hey k, where do you get the 'effen Joe Wilson'?

Wooden shoe like to know? ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Wooden shoe like to know? It's redacted, but check out the context. By the way, did you know that UGO became Armitage because MJW matched letters over redacted spaces? They are going to have to enact new methods of redacting to cover Armitage's next subterfuges.
======================

Hmm. So only people foun... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

Hmm. So only people found guilty are worthy of being condemned, and those not charged or not yet convicted are clean as a whistle.

Of course not, only a Sith or Righty thinks in absolutes, but there is a big difference between a partisan blogger accusing Russert of lying and LIbby being convicted of a felony.

No need to listen to my "J'... (Below threshold)
kim:

No need to listen to my "J'accuse", anymore. Let me thread herd you onto Kim Priestap(Big K)'s post of Clarice Feldman's elegant screed about the trial in the American Thinker. The Goddess always has a way about her and now she is HOT!
===================================

What does Clinton have to d... (Below threshold)
Allen:

What does Clinton have to do with Libby lying? Several years apart, if I remember correctly. And yes the British Intelligence was involved, and also the British gave us the Downing Street Memo's.

Also, why hasn't the head of the CIA admit that Plame was not undercover? That would answer that question once and for all, right?

Of course not, only a Si... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Of course not, only a Sith or Righty thinks in absolutes, but there is a big difference between a partisan blogger accusing Russert of lying and LIbby being convicted of a felony.

The geek quote would be only a Sith deals in absolutes. But your absolutely certain there is a big difference?


The geek quote would be ... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

The geek quote would be only a Sith deals in absolutes. But your absolutely certain there is a big difference?

You have out-geeked me, Sir. Kudos to you.

I am absolutely certain there is a big difference between being convicted of a felony and being accused of lying by a partisan blogger, but YMMV.

" I've agreed that L... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:


" I've agreed that Libby's interview with Eckenrode predated Fitz's appointment." by Kim

I glad that you agree that Jay lied on this point, so has every other commentator that says that no crime was committed prior to appointment of the SP.

It is just amazing the leve... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

It is just amazing the level of denial or hypocrisy from the Right.

Joe Wilson is the lowest of the low because he lied, yet not one single poster can provide one official document that says "Joe Lied", yet Libby is convicted of lying on four counts, and he is a hero?

I hope you keep this up right until the 2008 election.

CLAIM: Calling it a "sensat... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

CLAIM: Calling it a "sensational charge," the Post writes that there was "no evidence that [Plame] was, in fact, covert."

FACT: CIA, Former Colleagues, And Special Prosecutor All Report That Plame Was Covert. The CIA filed a "crime report" with the Department of Justice shortly after Novak's column, stating that an undercover agent's identity had been blown. Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, said "Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. ... All of my classmates were undercover." Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity.

Go to Think Progress for the links to the truths outlined above.

I am absolutely certain ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I am absolutely certain there is a big difference between being convicted of a felony and being accused of lying by a partisan blogger

Explain the difference. If it's merely a matter of degree, then maybe you should look into the accusations, and attempt to discern, without partisanship, whether there is anything to it.

Once again, it has been clearly established in the past that a court verdict does not necessarily reflect objective truth, but merely which side made a better impression.

Explain the difference. ... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

Explain the difference. If it's merely a matter of degree, then maybe you should look into the accusations, and attempt to discern, without partisanship, whether there is anything to it.

It is a matter or process. A felony conviction requires a great deal of time, effort and expense while anyone can make a perjury accusation on a political blog.

Also, Libby's very expensvie and very capable attorney got to cross-examine Russert. If Russert was lying through his teeth, like many here content, then I would have expected a good attorney to be able to discredit a lying witness and that didn't seem to happen.

BN, the difference between ... (Below threshold)
kim:

BN, the difference between the two is he said/he said. It has been framed inappropriately by you as a felony vs a blogger accusation. There is evidence, stipulated to by both defense and prosecution, that impugns Russert's version of that duality, and sooner or later, Mitchell and Gregory will get to swear to what they know about it.

Walton did not allow Libby to put Mitchell on the stand to rebut Russert, nor did he allow the tapes of Russert's own shows that demonstrated yet another perjury of Russert's, that about the availability of counsel when testifying before a Grand Jury.
=========================
============================

Barney, give up covert. Fi... (Below threshold)
kim:

Barney, give up covert. Fitz has said she was 'classified'. You know more than he does?
==================

Y'all are sniffing around t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Y'all are sniffing around the dirty deal and that is among Fitz, Eckenrode, and NBC lawyers, with Russert, Mitchell, and Gregory trembling like lost lambs before the great rapacious wolf, NBC profits.
===============================

You know that an NBC lawyer... (Below threshold)
kim:

You know that an NBC lawyer was blackberrying from within the courtroom in direct contempt of court. I suspect Denis Collins of being a stealth juror. He was not forthcoming in voir dire, and he may even have violated the law in doing so. If I were he, I'd hire a lawyer instead of a publicist. Oh, wait, Armitage didn't need a lawyer.
===================================

Kim,Are the non-Ru... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

Kim,

Are the non-Russert witnesses who claimed Libby spoke with them about Plame lying too?

Good question. All the non... (Below threshold)
kim:

Good question. All the non-Russert witnesses have memories poorer than Libby. Denis Collins, Head Juror, says the Russert testimony was the clincher. He didn't believe Fleischer, who, incidentally, had carte blanche immunity from Fitz, a proven recipe for tailored testimony, which is what Fitz, the crook, got from Ari.
===========================

Many of the non-Russert wit... (Below threshold)
kim:

Many of the non-Russert witnesses had memories that improved with time. And, interestingly enough, those memories improved in manners more favorable to the prosecution than the defense. I wonder what a statistician would think of the randomness of that.

Read the transcripts. See for yourself.
================

And Barney, I would support... (Below threshold)
kim:

And Barney, I would support j's point that no crime was committed before Fitz's appointment. It is true that the testimony for which Libby was convicted was given to Eckenrode before the appointment of Fitz, but I maintain that the only crime committed there was egregious conduct by Eckenrode, and Fitz after the fact, to criminalize Libby's probably true statement. It was, in fact, in the subjunctive. How could it have been untrue?
=================================

Show me the lie in "As if f... (Below threshold)
kim:

Show me the lie in "As if for the first time."
=======================

It's a lie only to the Aspe... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's a lie only to the Asperger mind of Fitz, and, by extension, all you moonbats.
===============================

"Denis Collins, Head Juror,... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Denis Collins, Head Juror, says the Russert testimony was the clincher." by Kim

That is not true. First of all, what does "head juror" mean? Did he give "head" to the other male jurors (like Libby will be performing in the Fed Pen)?

It was Libby's account of the conversation with Russert. They felt it was very improbably that Libby would have forgotten that he already knew Plame's identity.

"It's a lie only to the Asp... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"It's a lie only to the Asperger mind of Fitz, and, by extension, all you moonbats." by Kim

Good one Kim, make fun of people with autism. Did you learn that debating technique for the school Coulter?

"(like Libby will be per... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"(like Libby will be performing in the Fed Pen)?"

Only a faggot like you would know from experience.

Armitage was not THE leaker... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Armitage was not THE leaker.

Armitage was A leaker.

There's a huge difference.

I wonder what happened to all the people who Valerie Plame had "recruited" to help the U.S. uncover secret information? More than likely they are pushing up daisies all because this rogue administration values political "gotchas" to real governance.

barneyG2000Rubble:... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyG2000Rubble:

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, said "Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. ..

Do you have the slightest clue who Johnson is beyond pulling his name and alleged reputation from Think Progress?

Here is a short description of his resume:

His credibility is on the same level as the Screw Loose nutjobs you so lovingly quote on occasion.

Hey Rob, are you little ups... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Hey Rob, are you little upset because your whole world is crashing in around you?

It must feel terrible to know that you were violated by the republican party. Like Libby will experience in the Pen.

civil [mis]behavior Why pic... (Below threshold)
marc:

civil [mis]behavior Why pick nits over what was said in this thread?

Why not go to the source? (note the link is to a left/progressive site.

Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003--just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame.

Armitage's own words: "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing,"

Did you learn that deba... (Below threshold)
marc:

Did you learn that debating technique for the school Coulter?
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 7, 2007 02:57 PM

No... J has been influenced by your consistent use of invective and name calling.

marc, Ari, Libby a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc,

Ari, Libby and Rove all knew Plame's identity and discussed her identity to reports. Fitz had to investigate how they learned of her identity, what they said, did they know her status and who they spoke to.

Armitage made a statement. Fitz had to confirm the statements truth. Novak had more than one source. Who was that source? Rove denied his roll up until the summer of 2005.

To say that Fitz knew that no outing occurred before or early in the investigation is simple not true.

"Only a faggot like you wou... (Below threshold)
craig:

"Only a faggot like you would know from experience."

Hey Rob, what did Barney do to deserve that? Did he sleep with your wife as well? I know me boning her has made you very touchy, but it is time to let it go. You are not less of a man because, because I put horns on your head. All Hail the cuckoo bird.


"No... J has been influence... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"No... J has been influenced by your .." by marc

"J"? I see that your reading skills are as poor as your comprehension skills.

The comment was directed to Kim:

"Good one Kim, make fun of people with autism. Did you learn that debating technique for the school Coulter?"

Jay Tea fibbed:... (Below threshold)
BC:

Jay Tea fibbed:

3) Joseph Wilson lied about who behind his mission to Africa.

Wilson said that the vice-president's office arranged for his visit. It has become clear that his wife, in what appears to be an act of nepotism, pushed him for the assignment.

Sorry, but the only thing clear is that you're a sucker for every right-wing myth that makes the rounds. Wilson was sent to Niger because of Cheney's request to the CIA for more info on the yellowcake rumor. Wilson had already made one still-classified trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA, so the trip in question was actually Wilson's second. Plame had no authority whatsoever in regards to his assignment -- at best she could have suggested him, but again, Wilson had already done work for the CIA in Niger so he would have been an obvious consideration regardless. I had posted about this matter numerous times on Usenet with cites and sources. This is one link to a past Usenet discussion.

Note that I had linked to and quoted from the Senate Select Committee report that mentioned Wilson's trip. The link to the PDF version of the official file no longer works. This is another link to a PDF copy of the full report (warning -- it's 20+ Mb large).

Actually, everyone who has claimed "Wilson lied" has lied -- no exception, with Orrin Hatch and Stephen Hayes being among the most pernicious and odious purveyors of the "Wilson lied" myth.

New news, BC. Val sent her... (Below threshold)
kim:

New news, BC. Val sent her memo on Feb. 12. Cheney sent his on Feb. 13. You are just as wrong about everything else. Joe Wilson is a liar, a coward and a traitor, and you are merely among the last to know.
=================

Barney, you pitiful thing, ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Barney, you pitiful thing, Asperger's ain't autism. Stop spreading what you are full of.
======================

Barney, Fitz knew early in ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Barney, Fitz knew early in the investigation that the outing had been by Armitage, but also that it wasn't against the law about covert agents. Fitz agrees she was classified, and Armitage certainly mishandled that classified information. Why does he get a pass? Why did he get his identity protected?

Fitz himself says it wasn't about outing; it was about the contradiction between Russert's testimony to Eckenrode and Libby's, a contradiction that Libby was not allowed to fully explore at the trial. Wells wanted Mitchell, Gregory, and tapes of Russert impeaching his sworn testimony.

Read the transcript.
=======

Larry Johnson's long suit i... (Below threshold)
kim:

Larry Johnson's long suit is loyalty; it isn't his diamond wit. He has called me an ignorant soul and I've told him that it is only his ignorance that is saving his soul.
====================================

Kim, Asperger is part of th... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim, Asperger is part of the autism spectrum:

The terms more advanced autism, high functioning autism, Asperger's Syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) refer to individuals within the autism spectrum who do not experience severe intellectual impairments. Although more advanced individuals with autism may score below average on standardized intelligence tests, they often learn at or above normal rates in certain areas.

As usual, you are wrong.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the diagn... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the diagnosis of autism has expanded lately to virtually everyone.
=============================

So explain to me where on t... (Below threshold)
kim:

So explain to me where on the spectrum lies a main who cannot conceive the subjunctive and takes eight hours of badgering a fellow to produce one response he can imagine to be a lie merely because he can't imagine it to be true.
===================

Kim, my son has Asperger's.... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim, my son has Asperger's.

Well, I was going to... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well, I was going to point out how Jay's post was almost completely lies, but it looks like everyone else already did that.

But I would like to throw out there....

Libby was not charged with committing a crime that occurred before Fitzgerald began his investigation.

I believe, Jay, that you meant to say that "Clinton was not charged with committing a crime that occurred before Starr began his investigation."

Similarly, I feel compelled to rewrite your paragraph (C):

C) This is yet another case of criminalizing politics and policy. Starr's first act should have been to establish whether or not a crime was committed, not to reconstruct every single thing that happened. Only after it was proven that there was a crime at the core of the whole matter, then -- and only then -- should have the full investigation proceeded. We don't let the regular authorities go on fishing expeditions like this one; special prosecutors shouldn't be granted this privilege.

Of course, that doesn't excuse Clinton's apparent lying. But had Starr done things properly, the investigation would have ended long before Clinton was interviewed, and this whole thing would never have happened.

That should about do it.

Kim licked the Cheetos powd... (Below threshold)
BC:

Kim licked the Cheetos powder from her fingers to write:

New news, BC. Val sent her memo on Feb. 12. Cheney sent his on Feb. 13. You are just as wrong about everything else. Joe Wilson is a liar, a coward and a traitor, and you are merely among the last to know.

Since you provided no source, I had to do a little Googling to find out where this little gem of misinformation came from. Imagine my lack of surprise to find out that Byron "The Confused Dork" York of the National Review is the source.

First off -- Byron York, as far as I know, has never been correct or accurate about anything. Seriously. His articles sometimes get offered up as "proof" in my Usenet debates, and in every case, his info turns out to be confused nonsense after even a little fact checking.

In this case, York got his timeline more twisted up than Britney Spears's current fashion sense. This is a slightly more journalistic timeline -- the yellowcake issue came in the fall of 2001 courtesy of the Italians. If that isn't enough to show what a crock o' crap York is, go read through George Tenet's official statement on the matter. And just in case you can't figure it out on your own, the "individual with ties to the region" Tenet refers to is Wilson.

You really should put the Cheetos and Buds away and resolve to be a better, less gullible hillbilly crackhead.

I suppose I would be remiss... (Below threshold)
BC:

I suppose I would be remiss in not mentioning that a certain classified memo that was conveniently leaked to and then circulated by the right wing media, and which was about Plame's supposed involvment with her husband's trip, is apparently -- surprise, friggin surprise again -- bogus:

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

"It has been circulated around," one official said. CIA and State Department officials have refused to discuss the document.

And before some of you out there get tempted to attack me again -- perhaps it would be slightly more productive to perchance remember how you became so grossly misinformed about all of the circumstances surrounding Joe Wilson and his wife, and then try to figure out by whom and to what purpose.

"Hey Rob, what did Barney d... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Hey Rob, what did Barney do to deserve that?"

Oh , I don't know, make something up for me. You guys are good at that . I was just in the mood to call him a faggot , faggot. LOL....

BC, are you just figuring o... (Below threshold)
kim:

BC, are you just figuring out that we've figured out that State has dirty fingers, too. Look at Grossman with immunity and Armitage with no lawyer. Joe Wilson isn't the only villain, here.
===================================

And about Val's memo on Feb... (Below threshold)
kim:

And about Val's memo on Feb. 12, mebbe ya' better just google a little more, Bud.

These google sophists just slay me. They google enough to confirm their own biases. It's a piece of cake.
==============================

By the way, do you think th... (Below threshold)
kim:

By the way, do you think that Wilson under oath in the civil suit might explicate a little of those 'ties to the region'? Inquiring minds want to know.
==============================

"Only a faggot like you ... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

"Only a faggot like you would know from experience." "I was just in the mood to call him a faggot , faggot. LOL...."

There's Rob again, adding nothing to the conversation but his own homophobia. It's usually the ones who scream the loudest about their opinions of gays that have the greatest doubts about their own sexuality.

(Watch his post back with his usual screaming and yelling...oh, and don't forget to mention Clinton again, Rob, since it's all you do).

Rob, I'm lonely in jail (Wa... (Below threshold)
Bubba:

Rob, I'm lonely in jail (Waiting for libby to get here) When I get out I think I'm going to look you up and make you my girlfriend. All this talk of yours is turning me on. Can't wait to see you sweetie.

Bubba

Kim wrote:BC, a... (Below threshold)
BC:

Kim wrote:

BC, are you just figuring out that we've figured out that State has dirty fingers, too. Look at Grossman with immunity and Armitage with no lawyer. Joe Wilson isn't the only villain, here.

Ummm, Wilson is not and never was any sort of villain. He was asked by the CIA to use his Nigerian connections to make some inquiries about the Yellowcake rumor. He did so, brought back some info that he was debriefed about. No villainy here.

But when Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, claimed:

"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide...."

"the world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

"We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

That was villainy.

And when Wilson heard this speech, and others like it by Bush and his people to justify a preemptive invasion, he had very good reason to think something was very wrong. He wrote a rather mildly critical piece about all this that appeared in The New York Times. Still no villainy at his end.

Mild or not, Wilson's piece made him an immediate target of an over-the-top smear campaign that spread through the right wing mediasphere like the Norovirus through a cruise ship. "Wilson Lied" became a chant and a mantra. A guy who once stood up to Hussein in 1991 by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens was given the label "traitor" merely for expressing his opinion.

Lots o' villainy here....




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright ¬© 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy