« Another Report from Iraq You Need to Read | Main | Israeli News Editor Admits Slanting the News to Encourage Withdrawal from Lebanon »

The Libby Sentence

"What's wrong with this picture?" just about sums it up. Okay, for those who want some more details, here is a link to the AP story.

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison Tuesday for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, stood calmly before a packed courtroom as a federal judge said the evidence overwhelmingly proved his guilt.

"People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem," U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said.

Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Update: Tom McGuire gives his prediction of how this will likely play out and he looks at some of the fallout from the sentence including how it might play into the immigration debate and might affect Fred Thompson.

Macranger has an extensive Libby sentence watch post with lots of commentary and links.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Libby Sentence:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Libby Gets 30 Months in Prison in C.I.A. Leak Case

» Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with Official Libby sentence watch

Comments (207)

Here's a conservative mantr... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Here's a conservative mantra that fits: "You do the crime, you do the time." Justice served. You folks should appreciate it.

Scooter was convicted of "o... (Below threshold)

Scooter was convicted of "outing" a spy who was never a spy, and denied a chance to present all his evidence.

Compare that with Berger, who admitted to stealing and destroying classified documents, but who will not serve even one day in jail.

The lesson from this, is that most Republicans will play by the rules, and take what happens. Democrats, almost to the man, prize power but despise Justice.

Wow, Walton is sentencing b... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Wow, Walton is sentencing based on information never brought up in indictment or trial.

You were charged with speeding, convicted of speeding but I'm going to sentence you as if you had commited vehicular manslaughter.

What a charming jurist.

30-months for obstruction o... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

30-months for obstruction of justice and perjury. For disclosing the identity of an undercover (covert) agent during a time of war he should be hung.

JFO...and so how much TIME ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

JFO...and so how much TIME did Berger do?

Libby may or may not deserve jail-time, and may or may not deserve a stiff fine. The "what's wrong with this picture?" question is relative to the import of the "crime" versus the severity of the sentence.

We'll NEVER know why the Bush Administration didn't prosecute Berger into LIFE IN PRISON! WILLFULLY stealing and destroying top-secret documents from the National Archives pales when compared to lying to an investigator investigating a NON-CRIME (and providing those "lies" AFTER the investigator already KNEW where the "leak" came from!)

All I want to know was this... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

All I want to know was this done to:
1) Make Libby fight the sentence and not the verdict come appeal
2) Force Bush to pardon him so the liberal mythology can be complete
3) Make Libby try to cut a deal on Bush or others in his administration

Barney: "For disclosing ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Barney: "For disclosing the identity of an undercover (covert) agent"

Who? Not Plame, obviously, since (a) she was NOT "covert" within the timeframe set by law and (b) the actual "outing" was done by someone else!

Libby's "crime" stems from mis-statements regarding who told HIM what...not what HE told others.

I don't believe a sentence ... (Below threshold)

I don't believe a sentence of 30 months is enough to make Libby turn states' evidence on a run after Cheney.

He's a convicted liar, who would believe him now anyway?

Well done DJ, two lies in t... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Well done DJ, two lies in two sentences.

Berger did not steal or destroy documents. He inadvertly removed COPIES of the documents, and the matter was thoroughly investigated, he payed his fine and that was that.

Plame WAS under cover, as an article this week (in Newsweek I beleive) confirmed, and Libby LIED (again and again. He was tried, convicted, and (as the Judge noted) sentenced accordingly.

Both of these are fine examples of American Justice. What's wrong with you DJ, do you hate America?

and Justrand, Plame was<... (Below threshold)

and Justrand, Plame was covert.

Plame was 'covert' agent at time of name leak.

Yeah.Sure.<p... (Below threshold)

Yeah.

Sure.

And Algore is really Elvis gone into politics.


Give.Me.A.Break.

"What's wrong with you D... (Below threshold)

"What's wrong with you DJ, do you hate America?"

No, DJ just hates some Americans, as exemplified by this post headline "Handing Weapons to Our Enemies". The "enemies" DJ is referencing are liberals and Democrats...

30 months wasn't enough. An example needed to be set and 30 months was not enough. Having our government "declare war" on liberals, as exemplified by Plame's outing, has gone too far for too long.

This is starting to look li... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

This is starting to look like Walton butt-covering, given the extraordinary latitude accorded Fitzgerald at trial.

Having denied the defense documentation of Plame's status at trial he is now asserting that it has no relevance to the sentencing even as he is sentencing based on said status.

Now Libby's team is forced to appeal the sentencing and there is less likelihood that they can fight the full appeal and Walton's ruling will not be vacated.

The difference is that Berg... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The difference is that Berger did the right thing eventually: he admitted what he did was wrong...purloining and destoying copies of Archive documents He didn't continue to lie about it, under oath or try to obstruct justice once he was caught. If Libby had done the same in front of the grand jury, he would have walked, without even a fine or suspended sentence.

"Plame was covert."<p... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"Plame was covert."

Then why wasn't Libby convicted of outing the covert b*tch? He wasn't convicted of outing her. He was convicted of "lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation." He got 30 months for the crime - as well he should.

So what is your point? You want him to serve time for a crime for which he was not convicted?

I'll bet Scooter is beamed ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

I'll bet Scooter is beamed up before they can get that DNA sample.

Don't drop the soap Scooter... (Below threshold)
Another Ed:

Don't drop the soap Scooter!

Kapow: "Berger did not s... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Kapow: "Berger did not steal or destroy documents. He inadvertly removed COPIES of the documents"

more on Plame in a bit. But this horseshit assertion from Kapow is, well, horseshit.

Let's start with whether he did in fact "destroy" them. (you claim he did not). According to HIM he "shredded the documents with scissors and flushed them down the toilet". What would YOU call that action?

Ok...so he DID "destroy" them.

Did he "steal" them...or "inadvertantly remove" them. According to HIM he shoved the documents down his pants, and then hid them behind a tractor in a construction zone. INADVERTANT??

Ok...so he DID "steal" them.

Last point. Were they "COPIES"?? No. The underlying document in each case was, but the HANDWRITTEN notes on each made each one UNIQUE. Unique enough that Berger made MULTIPLE trips to the archives to remove MULTIPLE documents.

Back to Libby after this. But STOP with the Berger was a victim crap!

Whoa, Lee:Fitzgera... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Whoa, Lee:

Fitzgerald asserts that Plame was covert, refuses to release the documentation to back that up, does not charge on it or bring it up in trial (except in his bizarre closing rebuttal) and that makes it true?

The IIPA was designed to be read very narrowly, no evidence has thus far been presented that it waas violated or that Plame was covered.

Kapow: Inadvertantly? He normally walks around with classified info in his socks and shorts and just got the wrong ones this time? Hid them under a construction trailer and cut them into tiny pieces by accident? Copies? How do you know? The folks at Archives say there is no way to determine all of what he took.

Heh, Justrand beat me to it... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Heh, Justrand beat me to it.

What a travesty!A ma... (Below threshold)
mathman:

What a travesty!
A man is convicted of lying. His lie was a disagreement with a journalist (and of course they CANNOT lie). We KNOW that story is true. And OJ is out on the golf course daily, looking for the murderer of his wife.
The person who outed Valerie Plame is Richard Armitage. Did he get indicted? No. Did he out Valerie Plame? Yes.
Was Valerie Plame covert? Well, yes, if you accept the word of our CIA. Well, no, if you accept the language of the relevant statute (yes, there is a law).
Now remember: the CIA has inaccurately represented the situation in several parts of the world over the past 20 years. Ever since the decision to abandon the notion of ordinary spies and depend on technical means, the CIA has flubbed. They could not count the operable missiles in the USSR. They did not predict what would happen when the Ayatollah Khomeni went back to Iran. They did not predict the Kobar Towers bombing, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole attacks, or 9-11. For an agency which is presumed to be providing intelligence, they are pretty stupid.
******
Can one be covert and published in Who's Who?
Can one be covert and drive through the front gate of the Langley facility?
Can one be covert if one sometimes travels using one's own name?
Can one be covert while being introduced as a CIA employee by one's husband?
Can one be covert and on the cover of Vanity Fair?

This is a strictly political decision. This is payback to the administration of George W. Bush for stealing the election in 2000.

Oh joy. Now Libby has to ar... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Oh joy. Now Libby has to argue for liberty until appeal, has one week to get his argument together, and it goes back in front of Walton, who has been out of his weight class from the beginning on this one.

Hey, doesn't Sandy get his security clearance back soon?

"Scooter was convicted of "... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Scooter was convicted of "outing" a spy who was never a spy, and denied a chance to present all his evidence."
DJ http://wizbangblog.com/2007/06/05/the-libby-sentence.php#582708

Wrong:
"Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison Tuesday for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation."

Obstruction does not equal outing.

And Scooter In the News ups... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

And Scooter In the News ups the chance that there will be a Scooter's Delimma situational ethics question at the debate! (It IS tonight, isn't it?) See which of the candidates are registered neocon, and which are covert!

Paul is the only one confirned Clean, in my book.

Did you notice, UP, that th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Did you notice, UP, that the defense was ready to respond within 24 hours to anything Fitz can put about being free on bond pending appeal. They know they have him nailed. I'm pretty sure whatever they have and Fitz conceding that there is no flight risk will give Libby freedom until his appeals work.

All you lefties are in lala land. This has been a huge miscarriage of justice, and picking the bones of it will occupy historians for years. This was a deliberate Star Chamber, and it intended to bring down Bush.
=======================

Well, that's lunch. I'd ap... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Well, that's lunch. I'd appreciate it if folks could drop a couple of updates in here from time to time.

So Libby and Rove will go t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

So Libby and Rove will go to jail. Oh! Wait a minute. Rove isn't even charged with anything. I thought the liberals were going to frog march Rove out of the White House? Libby will be pardoned.

Lee, your friend Bill Clinton is a convicted liar, do you believe anything he says? ww

mathman, Timothy Leary and ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

mathman, Timothy Leary and William Buckley were all covert CIA assets. So the answer to your questions are: yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

p.s. as I said when I first... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

p.s. as I said when I first posted on this thread: "Libby may or may not deserve jail-time, and may or may not deserve a stiff fine."

If he truly did intend to "obstruct justice" then I have ZERO problem with him getting severe punishment.

I have problems with Fitzgeralds witchhunt, with the obvious political rationale for the prosecution, and the lies surrounding Plame and her husband.

But if Libby DID try to obstruct this investigation then he should get punished.

So should others who obstructed justice. Bill Clinton comes to mind.

I wasn't about sex. It's O... (Below threshold)

I wasn't about sex. It's OK to lie about sex, even under oath...

kim==="This has been a huge... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

kim==="This has been a huge miscarriage of justice, and picking the bones of it will occupy historians for years"

No kim. Too much government archiving of inter-office memos on host (as in parisite:host) department stationary (they wuz cocky in dem dayz!).

Primary sources. We're all Tacitus!


Barney2000 spews: "30-mont... (Below threshold)
doubled:

Barney2000 spews: "30-months for obstruction of justice and perjury. For disclosing the identity of an undercover (covert) agent during a time of war he should be hung."

Perhaps you were making a joke, if not, you are an a#$%^le.

Libby didn't out her, and rumors are that Armitage did. Should he be hung? Why is he not even being investigated?

All this episode reveals is how screwed up the CIA is , that an undercover agent would send (be able to send even) a spouse to throw mud (lies) at a sitting president.

Clancy, Clinton didn't lie ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Clancy, Clinton didn't lie about sex under oath. He answered the questions as instructed under the guidelines set forth by the Paula Jones attorneys. It's not Bill's fault paula hired lawyers form Regent U.

Justard, the documents were copies and not originals. Have you never seen a pdf scan of a document?

If Plame wasn't covert then why did Fitz submit documentation to Walton stating that she was? Is he lying? Why did the chief of the CIA (Hayden) verify Plame's status as covert?

mathman: "The person who... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

mathman: "The person who outed Valerie Plame is Richard Armitage. Did he get indicted? No. Did he out Valerie Plame? Yes."

Armitage's outing was accidental, he didn't know Plame was covert. Cheney and his "yes man" Libby intentionally went after Plame to discredit their critics, and they knew she was covert.

"Was Valerie Plame covert? Well, yes, if you accept the word of our CIA".

Thanks, for a second there I thought you were going to ask us to take the word of some guy on a blog comment thread named "mathman" instead. Wew! that's a relief.

"Arguments on whether or no... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne :):

"Arguments on whether or not Libby will be allowed to remain free on bond pending appeal will occur next week -- but Judge Walton has already indicted :) that he is disinclined :) to buy such arguments from defense counsel :) . That sets a high bar :) for them in terms of changing the judge's mind on that issue :) ."

It's from Firedoglake :) and it makes delightful :) reading.

I am surprised the "Truther... (Below threshold)
AngryMe:

I am surprised the "Truther Wing" of the Democratic Party really have let Bush slide on the Berger thing.

Think about it: 9/11 happens and then a former National Security Advisor steals and destroys hand-written notes of a President. Bush lets it go even though he could crush the Dems with it. Why? Bush's Dad and Bubba are buddies- I smell conspiracy but I see no Truthers.

Most of the Rabid Liberals I know here in Boston already hate Clinton (they think he was too conservative)- so throwing him under the bus to go after BusHitler really makes sense.

Ahh me, I will never understand Truthers.

Valerie Plame, Hmmm, I'd do... (Below threshold)
Bill Clinton:

Valerie Plame, Hmmm, I'd do her!

BG2, the pencilled marginal... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, the pencilled marginalia were ORIGINAL. Stop repeating the lying talking points about Berger.

Lee, she was not covert by legal definition. She was covert by casual CIA use, but certainly not covert enough to go on several well publicized jaunts as a CIA person, for instance, to Jordan in 2002. And Fitz didn't pursue Armitage because he knew he couldn't satisfy the legal definition of 'covert'. That didn't stop Fitz from insinuating covertness in the trial, and now at the sentencing phase. Fitz is a sick and evil man, and must live with himself. No one else could.
============================

How can anyone have a const... (Below threshold)

How can anyone have a constructive debate with some who believes that "Clinton didn't lie about sex under oath." I'm talking about Monica, not Paula. Clinton DID lie under oath.

He was even impeached for it, for what little good that did.

Then again, it did spare us from President Algore, so maybe it was ok...

AB, it is Fitz who is disse... (Below threshold)
kim:

AB, it is Fitz who is dissembling and fumbling about the 'liberty on bond' arguments. Wells is ready to argue it now. I wouldn't be surprised if an adverse ruling provokes an emergency appeal.
===========

She wasn't covert in the un... (Below threshold)
Jo:

She wasn't covert in the undercover sense. There is more than one definition of covert.

It's time to pardon Libby for this purely political witchhunt that EVERYONE knows is a sham.

Clancy, you really don't ha... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Clancy, you really don't have a clue do you?

"Libby didn't out her, and ... (Below threshold)

"Libby didn't out her, and rumors are that Armitage did"

rumors? I guess first hand accounts/confessions from Armitage could be construed as rumors, but I'd place them a little higher up the food chain.

September 2006, AP. "Armitage admitted last week that he told two reporters in 2003 that Plame worked for the CIA, but he said the disclosure was inadvertent. Armitage said he knew of no plan to leak Plame's identity; some people said that admission disproved the conspiracy theory..."

BG2, the pencilled marginal... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, the pencilled marginalia were ORIGINAL. My only consolation is to contemplate what the chances are that he found all the damning marginalia, and what the chances are that historians won't have a pretty good idea what Berger is hiding. There were a lot feckless fools in Clinton's national security apparatus.
======================

"Timothy Leary and William ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"Timothy Leary and William Buckley were all covert CIA assets. So the answer to your questions are: yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes."

HAH! Oh my god! Now it's all clear, bryan is tripping balls! You've got to be kidding me, you actually believe the story of Leary working with the CIA?!?! He himself argued, laughingly, that he was used unwittingly by them, at the very most, he was one of a LOT of test subjects in MKULTRA, kind of like you sigining up for the cocaine users with severe erectile dysfunction testing in the back of the city paper, HARDLY a "covert CIA asset", oh my god, can't...stop...laughing at how stupid you are bryan. I shouldn't be surprised though, considering your 9/11 beliefs. I think I know where bryan gets all his facts!!

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary

Valerie Plame, Hmmm, I did ... (Below threshold)
Hillary Clinton:

Valerie Plame, Hmmm, I did her!

From the WAPO:Archiv... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

From the WAPO:
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost.

"Scooter was convicte... (Below threshold)
Is our children learning?:

"Scooter was convicted of "outing" a spy who was never a spy" DJ Drummond

DJ Drummond, what kind of an ass are you? Court papers were filed by Fitzgerald revealing that indeed, Plame was a CIA agent.

This just reflects that you right wing extremists cater to treason when it's committed by scum like Libby from the Republican side. You prove that you have no respect for LAW, nor do you have respect for CIA undercover agents serving their country. You are beneath contempt.

Plame worked at the ... (Below threshold)

Plame worked at the CIA. She was not a field agent, nor 'undercover' as an operative at the time and place where the events in question transpired.

By your logic, the janitors at the Senate should get votes on legislation, and so should the valets who park the cars. Working at the CIA and being a field agent are not the same thing.

Facts are always such a problem for the Left!

Ed at <a href="http://www.c... (Below threshold)

Ed at Captain's Quarters has a good response to those whining about Sandy Berger:

Commenters are complaining about Sandy Berger getting a walk while Libby does 30 months. Put aside for the moment that the same exact Justice Department handled both (no one told them to go easy on Berger, after all, and they did just that), what exactly is the argument here? Because they screwed up the Berger prosecution, that no one else should be prosecuted for obstruction? Sorry, that doesn't fly. That puts the entire DC culture in a tit-for-tat game that allows no consequences for abuses of power. I don't want that kind of government -- do you?

Those are some good questions.

DJ: "By your logic, the ... (Below threshold)

DJ: "By your logic, the janitors at the Senate should get votes on legislation, and so should the valets who park the cars. ".

The CIA considers janitors "covert"? really DJ? You're not kidding us are you?

The valets are classified as "covert" by the CIA also?

Wow, DJ - sometimes the things you come up with are kinda --you know -- hard to believe.

Democrats and liberals are "the enemy" and the valets who park cars at the Sneate office are "covert".

I see...

"Facts are always such a problem for the Left!" -- and we are so lucky to have you conservatives around to correct us...

"Fitz is a sick and evil... (Below threshold)
Is our children learning?:

"Fitz is a sick and evil man, and must live with himself. No one else could." kim

Well congratulatios, kim; you finally got your bowels to move.

DJ, you are exactly spot on... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

DJ, you are exactly spot on, facts are always, always a problem for the left. And a very strong dose of denial. ww

BG2, there were ORIGINAL pe... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, there were ORIGINAL pencilled marginalia; you are out of date with the 'copies' business. Besides, is he dumb enough to seek out and destroy copies? Is he dumb enough to let bin Laden get away with murder? Well, since you put it that way.
========================

barney barney..."... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

barney barney...
"Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost."

Yup, they did say that PREVIOUSLY. They have since admitted that they do not know exactly WHAT he took.

But one thing they do know he took: THREE COPIES of the SAME MEMO. Each had notes, btw.

THREE copies...of the SAME MEMO? Each one subsequently destroyed (cut up, burned, flushed). You, of course, consider this NORMAL activity for someone NOT trying to obstruct something??

It's treasonous, of course. But I consider the bungling (or LACK) of the investigation into it to be almost equally so. In this case I do BLAME BUSH as well!! Berger should be locked away for life.

It became suddenly clear to... (Below threshold)
kim:

It became suddenly clear to the administration about 3 or 4 months ago that the Department of Justice has been under the control of Schumer and veterans of the Southern District of New York, like McNulty, Comey, and Muller of the CIA. So blame Schumer for the lack of prosecution of Berger. It makes sense, no?

I blame Bush for not catching on about the DoJ, and the CIA, sooner. These recovering alcoholics can be awfully trusting souls.
========================

Is 'is our children learnin... (Below threshold)
kim:

Is 'is our children learning' in fact our local poop, kook, and twit merchant?
==============================

Just: THREE COPIES of the S... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Just: THREE COPIES of the SAME MEMO. Each had notes, btw.

So you admit that the documents were copies. If there were marginal notes from someone other than Berger then the documents would be originals and not copies.

The notes in question were Bergers' notes he made during his time in the archive (which is a violation) reviewing the memos.

It is still illegal to be R... (Below threshold)
Michael:

It is still illegal to be Republican.....

Wrong, BG2, but it is obvio... (Below threshold)
kim:

Wrong, BG2, but it is obvious what the spin will be. The copies were not made at the National Archives, they were made in the Clinton Administration and circulated among Clinton's national security staff, who pencilled in marginalia, possibly even Clinton himself.

I'd like a source for where you come up with the idea that the pencilled marginalia were from Berger's work in the archives. This is desperate disinformation and must die in the cradle. Source it, liar.

I rarely source, I rarely call for sourcing, but this is outrageous.
==============================

Look, it is obvious to all ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Look, it is obvious to all but purblinded leftists that Berger stole tremendously embarassing comments by his circle of cronies. It is obvious also that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are a pair of very accomplished liars, who own a convenient, but false, meme. The truth hurts, but it will prevail.
=============================

Barney it's your treason... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Barney it's your treasonous Party that should all be hug. When that day of Justice comes will you hang right along side the Traitors? You are not worth the air you breath.

Barney it's your treason... (Below threshold)
Grammar Cops:

Barney it's your treasonous Party that should all be hug.

Correction: "Barney it's your treasonous Party that should all be hugged."

Plame worked at the CIA.... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Plame worked at the CIA. She was not a field agent, nor 'undercover' as an operative at the time and place where the events in question transpired.

Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true. A federal prosecutor, citing information given him by the CIA, files court papers stating a finding of fact.

Is:


  • a) The federal prosecutor lying?

  • b) The CIA lying?

  • c) The federal prosecutor committing perjury?

  • d) The CIA refusing to expose perjury?

  • e) Everything the federal prosecutor said true?

And somehow you know better?

Here are 2 examples ... (Below threshold)
JFO:


Here are 2 examples of the delusional right from comments:


"DJ, you are exactly spot on, facts are always, always a problem for the left. And a very strong dose of denial. ww"

"Scooter was convicted of "outing" a spy who was never a spy, and denied a chance to present all his evidence."
Posted by: DJ Drummond at June 5, 2007 12:38 PM

DJ tosses out a lie and no one challenges it. Either you're a liar or delusional. Which is it? There's help for the second alternative.

Kim:

I challenged you on another post to supply the supported facts to support your silly assertion
about the Justice Department being controlled by Chuck Schumer - you didn't respond there - how about here?

Lee, she was not covert ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Lee, she was not covert by legal definition.

Really? Which part of the legal definition (see section 4) does not apply?

And please cite your evidence.

kim, are you stating that B... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

kim, are you stating that Berger took original memos with handwritten notes (not copies of memos with handwritten notes) out of the archive and destroyed the originals?

Yes, Brian, I know better; ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yes, Brian, I know better; I've been following this like crazy.

A. Fitzgerald encouraged Russert's perjury.

B. The CIA is dissembling about covert. Plame was not covert by any legal definition.

C. I wouldn't put it past him. He has come close to perjury in acquescing in Russert's.

D. Yes. Plame has told three stories about how and why Joe went to Africa. Some of these stories were under oath.

E. He refuses to believe the truth.
=======================

BG2, you elide the meaning ... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, you elide the meaning of 'copies'. The copies he took had original marginalia on copies of memoes that had circulated among the staff. These 'copies' had original handwritten notes. There is no 'copy' of what Berger took.
=================

kim, from: <a href="http://... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

kim, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_terror_documents

After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.[21] His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations.[22]

and this:

"The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an 'urban myth,' prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was 'so inaccurate as to be laughable.' In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror 'after-action' report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all."[23]

oops!

A. Fitzgerald encouraged... (Below threshold)
Brian:

A. Fitzgerald encouraged Russert's perjury.

Really? What does the Justice Department have to say about this?

B. The CIA is dissembling about covert. Plame was not covert by any legal definition.

I pointed you to the legal definition above. Please explain what does not apply. It only has seven requirements; surely you can find the one that that disqualifies Plame from "covert" status!

E. He refuses to believe the truth.

So that means that he filed false statements--perjury--in federal court, statements in which he falsely attributes false information to the CIA. What does the Justice Department have to say about this?

BG2, you give me the prosec... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, you give me the prosecutor? What say the archivists? And Wikipedia is untrustworthy politically.

JFO, Walton wouldn't allow Libby to present evidence that Plame was not covert. So DJ is right.

Brian, did you note the caveat, 'for the purposes of this subchapter'? Not for purposes of prosecution under the relevant statute.
======================

Kim;He was convict... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Kim;

He was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice - holy cow are you folks that off the planet?

Brian, did you note the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, did you note the caveat, 'for the purposes of this subchapter'? Not for purposes of prosecution under the relevant statute.

And just what do you think the subchapter contains, recipes for chopped liver?

The definition applies to subchapter 4. That subchapter contains section 421, "Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources". And what's in section 421? Why it's relevant statutes under which someone can be prosecuted. Including that old favorite, " Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information".

Now, I ask again, please back up your assertion that Plame did not meet the legal definition of "covert", cited previously.

WOW kim, you are piecing to... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

WOW kim, you are piecing together quit a conspiracy here. You believe that the prosecutor in the Berger case is lying, FItz is lying, Judge Walton is lying, Gen Hayden is lying....

Note the desperation in the... (Below threshold)

Note the desperation in the moonbats' collective retorts.

A nerve seems to have been struck.

kim, even Rich Lowery over ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

kim, even Rich Lowery over at the corner is now back peddling on their assessment that VP was not covert.

DJHere a retort. W... (Below threshold)
JFO:

DJ

Here a retort. Why don't you take a stab at the truth - what an incredibly dishonest statement in your comment. Pathetic doesn't even come close to a description of it.

I'd rather be a moonbat than a lying wingnut any day.

D-Hoggs_"He (Leary)himself ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

D-Hoggs_"He (Leary)himself argued, laughingly, that he was used unwittingly by them, at the very most.."

Well, what do you know! We're halfway there!

Except Leary was no dummy and he admitted his involvement. A. Hoffman (an honest freak) spilled the beans years ago: secret funding sources from government foundations for think tank experiements: drugs and mass movements. Sociology was big then. Computers were worshopped. No data was off limits in the name of "science". Cia at street level.

PS: Investigate Manson and the Esalon Institute. Creepy. But since you're a crappy googler, read The Ultimate Evil.

Note the absence of facts o... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Note the absence of facts or substance in the wingnuts' collective retorts.

A nerve seems to have been struck.

The truth is simple isn't i... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

The truth is simple isn't it, Kim?

Was she covert in Jordan in... (Below threshold)
kim:

Was she covert in Jordan in 2002? Canada? And if she were covert, why didn't Fitz pursue Armitage?

JFO, the conviction will not stand on appeal. Fitz was out of control, and Walton too dumb or biased to stop him. The appeals court will not be amused.
==================

Lee:He's a con... (Below threshold)
marc:

Lee:

He's a convicted liar, who would believe him now anyway?

Buwahahahaha......

Lee you'd be the first to sing his praises if Libby suddenly "got religion" (sorry 'progressives' no offense intended) and spilled the beans on every real and imagined transgression by Bush in the last 6 years.

You're a funny guy Lee, when do you take over for Colbert?

What does the Department of... (Below threshold)
kim:

What does the Department of Justice say? Well, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they acted a little different over the next two years than they have for the last six years, while they've been under Schumer's control via the Southern District of New York alumni.
===============================

And I note, Brian, that sec... (Below threshold)
kim:

And I note, Brian, that section 421 talks about 'affirmative actions' taken to prevent the leak of the 'covert' one's identity. Show me the affirmative actions taken by the CIA to protect Val's identity.
====================

Kapow:Lets assume ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Kapow:

Lets assume you're correct...

Can you explain why Berger voluntarily surrendered his law license?

Could it possibly be because he was afraid to be placed under oath and forced to answer questions regarding his little trip behind a construction trailer?

Evening Brian,Plam... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Evening Brian,

Plame was not covert under the IIPA for a variety of reasons;

No overseas posting within the past five years.

No CIA affirmative actions taken to disguise her identity.

No personal actions taken to disguise her identity (unless you want to argue that letting your husband be a mendacious blowhard in the public arena, or making donations to political paries using your cover business are a good ways to mantain your legend.)

Already having cover blown, first by Ames then by the CIA itself in Cuba.

Taking trips to Yemen and Canada using your own name and description as a CPD specialist.

Not to mention that her husband (with the very important hair) was mouthing off all over town: listen to the Woodward tape of his conversation with Armitage.

Now by in-house rules all Agency employees, except the public face of it, are called "covert, undercover or classified" as a kind of verbal shorthand. This does not mean that they are under the IIPA; which is why Fitzgerald did not bring it up at trial and even judge Walton said that he had no idea of what Plame's actual status was.

Since then there has be no elucidation or enlightenment forthcoming from Langley.

Did not stop Walton from using it in his sentencing, or Fitzgerald from brimging it up. Pretty bad.

OK Libby haters... you know... (Below threshold)
marc:

OK Libby haters... you know who you are, each one of you have used Libby as a proxy for failing to get your real target Karl Rove.

Well, you failed but enjoy your little victory over a case that was motivated by the political arena more than any law breaking. Haha-heehee, great fun isn't?

However I'll ask each one of you if and when will you be calling for Plame's head for telling three different versions of how and why she did or didn't recommend hubby Joe for his Most Excellent African Trip.

Rule of law right? That's what you are all spewing io this thread. Who among you rejoicing over justice being served will support a Congressional probe of Plame on this issue.

Libby will be pardoned on G... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Libby will be pardoned on GW's last week in office. Libby knows it. ww

Brown:Note the... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brown:

Note the absence of facts or substance in the wingnuts' collective retorts. A nerve seems to have been struck.

Yeah, the judge in this case had the same problem.

It must be contagious like bird flu.

marc,Agreed. That ... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

marc,

Agreed. That was testimony under oath and there is far more evidence of perjury there than there was in the Libby case.

Wouldn't mind seeing that investigated. Seems only fair.

Also wouldn't mind havng a chat with Russert, Mitchell and Gregory; under oath, without counsel, for more than eight hours and without letting them refer to their notes.

Walton, although a fool, spoke before trial of Cooper's inability to make any statement without impeaching himself.

Right now I can't recall the name of the FBI agent who said "I can't believe I said that" about the statement she made hours previously, but it would probably be fun (but cruel) to question her about her conduct, with the same provisos as above.

Yeah, the judge in this ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yeah, the judge in this case had the same problem.

You link to a debunked post that ignores the facts, and treats the absence of evidence as evidence of absence? Wow, you really are desperate.

I find it hilarious that so... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

I find it hilarious that some of you pitiful conservative fools are still claiming that Plame was not covert CIA. I guess you missed Fitzgeralds news conference and the CIAs statement putting that Sean Hannity spin to rest.

So Mr. DJ Drummond are you a liar or just plain stupid. I seem to remember some posts from you claiming to be a christian. Is that what christians do...lie about and defame a woman that was only doing her job and serving this country?

And I note, Brian, that ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And I note, Brian, that section 421 talks about 'affirmative actions' taken to prevent the leak of the 'covert' one's identity. Show me the affirmative actions taken by the CIA to protect Val's identity.

Sure, no problem.

"the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak.

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment and cover status."

Want to know more details? Well...

The CIA has not divulged any other details of the nature of Plame's cover or the methods employed by the CIA to protect her cover nor the details of her classified intelligence activities.

So let me preempt you before you declare that "oh, well, since the CIA won't release classified information, you can't prove anything." The CIA did discuss that information... with Fitzgerald. If you want to call him and the judge liars, you better have more to support yourself than hand-waving.

No, dr larva, I did not mis... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

No, dr larva, I did not miss that.

Just don't believe it.

If Fitzgerald truly believes it, he would have brought it up in the charges or at trial. That he did not do so is... interesting, to say the least.

That Pete Hoekstra has still, still not recieved a yes or no answer from CIA is also... interesting. If Fitzgerald can get such a clear statement from Langley why can not the ranking Rep. on the House Intel Comittee?

Fitzgerald's news conference, and indeed his sentencing guideline, is artful misdirection. He does not mention Plame as being covered by the IIPA or the Espionage Act, he says that she was being treated as if she were covert by the CIA. Nice parsing.

And by the way, kim, don't ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And by the way, kim, don't think I didn't notice that you shifted the topic away from "was she covert" to "assuming that she was covert, the statute that covers revealing her identity wasn't violated". So do we take that to mean you acquiesce that she was covert?

You know, if Plame was cove... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You know, if Plame was covert, the LENGTHY investigation dealing with who leaked the name of a classified agent's name would have had a single attempt to indict somebody for, you know, outing an agent.

I mean, heck, has a prosecutor EVER exaggerated his evidence? I don't think so, do YOU?
-=Mike

No, Brian, she was covert b... (Below threshold)
kim:

No, Brian, she was covert by casual use of the term in the CIA, not in a manner which fits any statute Fitz could have prosecuted under. You have fallen for Waxman's and Hayden's and Fitzgerald's handwaving. In fact, allegations that she is covert for the sentencing hearing, allegations which were not allowed at trial, though Fitz sneaked them in anyway, will contribute to his successful appeal. Libby was not allowed to address whether or not Plame was covert in his defense. Yet it was used in the trial, and in the sentencing portion by the prosecution. Do you not remember Judge Walton admonishing the jury to ignore something that Fitz said in closing? That was illicit reference to Val's covertiness.
==========================================

Off to dinner.No d... (Below threshold)
Uncle Pinky:

Off to dinner.

No debate spoilers please.

I love the logic from he ri... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I love the logic from he right: since there was no conviction then VP wasn't covert! So I guess Nicole Simpson was not murdered because nobody has been convicted.

Brian, read your last post ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Brian, read your last post again, and show me the affirmative actions taken by the CIA. Like Harlow blowing to Novak. Like Plame blowing to the State Department representative on the first Africa meeting. Like both Wilsons blowing to Kristoff and to Kerry and Rockefeller. Like Joe Wilson blowing about his wife the CIA agent in green rooms all over America. Like Plame traveling as a CIA representative to Jordan in 2002, and to Canada. Not to mention the overtness of that shallow cover in Boston.

And again, if Fitz did find a prosecutable leak, why didn't he pursue that instead of a fairy tale prosecution against the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Joe Wilson Straight?
=======================

Plame is quoted as saying s... (Below threshold)
kim:

Plame is quoted as saying she doesn't know if she was covert, that she was 'not a lawyer'. Nor apparently does the CIA know if she was covert, because Hayden's opinion was not a legal one. As UP notes, Hoekstra has yet to receive the CIA's legal opinion. He's not likely to soon, either, since Val is suing the CIA over some of these issues.

Story ain't over yet, folks. No premature celebrations. Joe Wilson is a dangerous liar, and the folks who depend upon him are going to be disappointed.
===============================

UP, it was Agent Bond, test... (Below threshold)
kim:

UP, it was Agent Bond, testifying about Eckenrode's interrogation of Libby and of Russert, the notes of which are lost, and Eckenrode not available to testify.

The FBI one morning,
Lost its notes, suborning.
Eckenrode,
Where is that toad?
He's wanted at a harrowing.
==================

BG2, you must be starting t... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, you must be starting to stretch. Fitz was given extraordinary powers to investigate a leak. When he asked that his powers be extended, he knew that Armitage was the leaker who could be traced from Novak, and he knew that he could suborn Russert's perjury with the help of Eckinrode. These are serious charges, but they are true.
=============


Fitz knew when he submitted... (Below threshold)
kim:

Fitz knew when he submitted an affidavit to the court in the Russert subpoena fight that Russert had already co-operated with Eckenrode. He hid that from the judge. That's misconduct, if not downright perjurious.
=======================

The reconstructed notes sug... (Below threshold)
kim:

The reconstructed notes suggest that Russert wasn't sure Plame didn't come up in the pertinent conversation with Libby. Russert swore at trial that her name couldn't have come up, and that is the essence of the perjury charge against Libby. Both are in evidence, and ought to clear Libby of perjury on the face of it.
=============================


Here's how obsessed I am, U... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here's how obsessed I am, UP. I just now figured out what debate you meant.
===============================

Surely Libby gets mentioned... (Below threshold)
kim:

Surely Libby gets mentioned this evening.
========================

No, Brian, she was cover... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No, Brian, she was covert by casual use of the term in the CIA, not in a manner which fits any statute Fitz could have prosecuted under.

Now you're just repeating your assertion, even in the face of facts to the contrary. You said she wasn't covert according to the legal definition, I showed you the legal definition and invited you to describe how it didn't apply. You tried to say the definition wasn't related to statutes, and I showed you that the definition was defined within the very context of the statutes. Then you veered off the covert argument and asked me to prove the statute applies (a task usually relegated to a jury, by the way). I gave my argument, based on published statements. And then you returned to repeating your assertion that she wasn't covert according to the legal definition (with a few "hey, look over there at Joe Wilson!" thrown in for distraction).

I shall assume that since you returned to your initial statement and didn't provide support for it that you have none. Fair enough. I won't embarrass you any further.

Fitzgerald is expert at rol... (Below threshold)
kim:

Fitzgerald is expert at rolling up criminal conspiracies when there is one, but it is becoming abundantly clear that if there was no conspiracy, then he is capable of imagining one, believing it, then finding someone to prosecute for the sake of 'justice'.

When Libby told Cheney several months later that he had first heard about Plame from Cheney in June, Cheney looked up questioningly and said "From me?". Val Plame had been the low-level CIA functionary who recommended Joe Wilson for the trip when Cheney and Libby had discussed her in June, and when they finally realized in July that she was the wife of the lying ambassador, they were the last in Washington to know. It is sad, but true.
=================

You know, if Plame was c... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You know, if Plame was covert, the LENGTHY investigation dealing with who leaked the name of a classified agent's name would have had a single attempt to indict somebody for, you know, outing an agent.

Not necessarily. The statute states the name must be "intentionally" disclosed. If, after the investigation, Fitz felt it wasn't intentional by Armitage, he could have decided not to prosecute. None of which has anything to do with Plame's covert status, or with Libby obstructing the investigation itself. Otherwise, you would create a process that encouraged obstruction (that is, you would have an incentive for preventing a conviction on the charge under investigation).

But you unintentionally raise a good point. If Plame was not covert, the LENGTHY investigation dealing with who leaked the name of a classified agent's name would not have been LENGTHY, would it? After all, question #1 is "was she covert?" If the answer is "no", then there is no question #2.

She wasn't covert. The Woo... (Below threshold)
kim:

She wasn't covert. The Woodward quote from Armitage is that the asshole Wilson is spreading it all over town.
======================

And you're right. The answ... (Below threshold)
kim:

And you're right. The answer was that she was not covert for purposes of the two acts that might apply. That's why he asked Comey(previously of the Southern District of New York) for further powers, and when he got them, he went after Libby for perjury and obstruction, because he imagined a conspiracy by the White House to out Plame. The trouble is that the White House didn't know the low-level CIA person who had made the decision to send Joe to Africa was the wife of the lying ambassador. They were the last in Washington to know. So Fitz pursued a will o' the wisp, with the co-operation of Eckenrode.
=================================

Brian, you have lots of pub... (Below threshold)
kim:

Brian, you have lots of published disinformation statements, and a lot of effort put into confusing you. What you don't have is a legal opinion from the CIA stating that she was covert for purposes of prosecution and you won't get it, either. That would be dispositive; everything else, speculative.
======================

And isn't it curious that t... (Below threshold)
kim:

And isn't it curious that the CIA's referral of this matter to the Justice Department is not in the public domain. Fitzgerald claims it is too secret to reveal. Frankly, I don't think it can stand public scrutiny. I'd be amused if it came out in Plame's suit against the CIA.

Whoever is the fool guiding those two's legal decisions? Mela Jones, you better watch your speed.
=======================

Brian, I won't 'affirmative... (Below threshold)
kim:

Brian, I won't 'affirmatively' embarrass you any further; it would be redundant.
=====================

Could someone just shut Kim... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Could someone just shut Kim the hell up!!!!!
You've posted 29/116 comments = 25% - talk about hijacking as thread!
You either: obsessed, really obsessed, a loud mouth, an incredible loud mouth or all or any of the above. For heaven's sake JUST SHUT UP.
You really have nothing to offer except to try and show how clever you are - NOT.
You make silly and asinine statements about Schumer running the Dept of Justice and when challenged to prove it (twice) you go silent.
In other words, Kim, you suffer from constipation of the brain, but diarrhea of the mouth.

No refutation, just a cry f... (Below threshold)
kim:

No refutation, just a cry for censorship.

It is difficult to prove my allegation about Schumer. But when you see the White House set up by Comey with Fitz, and with Muller at the CIA, and you see McNulty's hit job on Gonzales, and Comey's charade at Ashcroft's bedside, and you note that those three are all from the Southern District of New York, then dots can be connected, particularly with Schumer's behaviour in the Senate corresponding to the actions of those three. It is an unconstitutional arrogation of power, and he should be punished. Bush did make reference to an ongoing investigation in the DoJ about wrongdoing there, and promised the reporter that if there were wrongdoing it would be taken care of 'like you would like'. I take it he and Gonzales have caught on to Schumer's game. Note that both Comey and McNulty are gone, and Schumer was angry that McNulty left. Did you note that his assistant testified under oath to McNulty's perjury? Did you see Schumer make a big deal of that? If he weren't Schumer's man, he would have.
===================

Absolutely a cry for censor... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Absolutely a cry for censorship...start your own blog. You could call it Windba)g. Get a life and spare us having to scroll through your failed asttempts to be clever.

As i thought, you take a conclusion and then posit your theories to support the conclusion. No evidence, no facts, just more wind. Oh, and lots of dots.

See, I could say something like, ummm Gonzales is definitely a liar.; no facts to support it, no evidence of anything. Just dots to connect. Sheesh.

So, do you think Val was co... (Below threshold)
kim:

So, do you think Val was covert? Why or why not?
====================

It's irrelevant whether Pla... (Below threshold)
JFO:

It's irrelevant whether Plame was covert. You blather the same crap as Drummond about Libby being "convicted" of outing Plame. He was convicted of lying and obstructing justice. Get over it. Those were the crimes. He did it - the jury says so, the judge said the evidence was "overwhelming". He needs to suffer the consequences - a good conservative value you and Drummond should support.

Brian:You link... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

You link to a debunked post that ignores the facts, and treats the absence of evidence as evidence of absence? Wow, you really are desperate.

And your link? Come-on big boy, surely you can drum up a link to the "debunking."

"A. Fitzgerald encour... (Below threshold)
Is our children learning?:

"A. Fitzgerald encouraged Russert's perjury." etc blah blah blah kim

Someone at the State Institute is in big trouble for forgetting to lock down the psych ward computer.

Brian:I showed... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

I showed you the legal definition and invited you to describe how it didn't apply. You tried to say the definition wasn't related to statutes, and I showed you that the definition was defined within the very context of the statutes.

I see... I understand it all now.

You're calling the author of the law a liar when she testified Plame's status didn't meet the criteria of the law.

It's all very clear now. When will you call for her trail for perjury?

Brian, you have lots of ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, you have lots of published disinformation statements

Yeah, those legal statutes and sworn court filings from federal prosecutors carry soooo much disinformation.

What you don't have is a legal opinion from the CIA stating that she was covert for purposes of prosecution and you won't get it, either.

That is exactly what we have. As reported by the federal prosecutor in a sworn court filing. You just think everyone is lying.

And your link? Come-on b... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And your link? Come-on big boy, surely you can drum up a link to the "debunking."

The link is right there in the post you yourself cited. Surely you can find it, little boy.

So, do you think Val was... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So, do you think Val was covert? Why or why not?

Why do you even bother asking that? No matter what the response, you'll just declare that she wasn't because hmmm, for some suspicious reason, one of the country's most secretive government organizations refuses to comment publicly on the covert status of its operatives.

You're calling the autho... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You're calling the author of the law a liar when she testified Plame's status didn't meet the criteria of the law.

Please cite this alleged testimony.

Hey Brian, JFO says her cov... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey Brian, JFO says her covertness is irrelevant. Well why did Fitz bring it up in closing over the protestations of the judge, and why did he bring it up at sentencing? You are wrong about what Fitz has filed about her covertness. It does not support prosecution under either of the relevant acts.

This is 'is our's 'kook' moment. Last was a 'poop' one; next will be 'twit'.
=================================

Brian, it was Toensing's te... (Below threshold)
kim:

Brian, it was Toensing's testimony, about which Waxman was wroth.
========================

You see, I've pointed out b... (Below threshold)
kim:

You see, I've pointed out before, and you just don't see it. Fitz knew years ago he couldn't prove 'covert' for purposes of prosecution, which is why he made sure that the defense could not devise a strategy based on that, then he alluded to it in closing, drawing Walton's ire, and now brought it up in sentencing. In neither case was Libby allowed to address it. This violates the defendant's right to confront his accuser, and, on Fitz's part, it it having his cake and eating it, too.

As I say, the Appellate Court is not going to be amused.
========================

Fitzgerald encouraged Russe... (Below threshold)
kim:

Fitzgerald encouraged Russert's perjury.

Why were Eckenrode's notes of the pertinent conversation with Russert not available at trial. This was the sticking point of the strongest charge, that Libby lied about Russert mentioning Plame. The reconstructed notes suggest that Russert was not certain that Plame's name did not come up, yet years later he testified that they could not have come up. Fitzgerald's behaviour of not pursuing Armitage, instead pursuing his imagined conspiracy at the White House, was made possible by the distinction between how Libby and Russert characterized that conversation, and it took Russert lying in court, and Fitz frantically keeping Andrea Mitchell off the stand to keep going the charade that The White House wasn't the last to know that the lying Joe Wilson's wife was the one who sent him to Africa. Fitz was unethical, too, when he did not disclose to the judge hearing Russert's challenge to the subpoena, that Russert was perjuring himself in that document, because Russert was already co-operating.

How do you fight a subpoena when you have already co-operated? When you have an unethical federal prosecutor helping you along with the story.
=====================

Russert was stupid enough t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Russert was stupid enough to ridicule Novak for submitting so easily to Fitz. Novak has a long memory.
==========================

Note carefully, JFO, how Mc... (Below threshold)
kim:

Note carefully, JFO, how McNulty's perjuries set up Gonzales? They were just a bit too bold.
=============================

One hundred plus comments a... (Below threshold)
kim:

One hundred plus comments and nobody has seriously challenged that Joe Wilson is a liar. You all know it. Doesn't the dissonance jar you all a little? I know BDS is the opiate of the people, but still, have a little awareness; it's in your subconscious that these two are lying their asses off.
=====================

Brian:Please c... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Please cite this alleged testimony.

Hmmm... strange, you're put on the mask of "expert" on this issue yet you apparently have no idea she ever testified.

Typical.

And finally... a question.<... (Below threshold)
marc:

And finally... a question.

How do you "out" someone who was already "Plame Out of the Cold."

Liberal blogger Kevin Drum with help from the NYT discovered Plame was outed by convicted spy Aldrich Ames back in 1994.

So her status as a covert agent, in any reasonable definition including legal, ended in the mid-90s when she was called back to Washington by the CIA for her safety, who acknowledged that her cover had been blown. She could never be used as a covert agent again.

Furthermore, also during the 90s, the CIA sent Plame's name and information, among other secrets, to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana. Cuban Intelligence read the entire shebang.

All of this was prevented from coming out at Libby's trial because pre-trial Judge Walton said that the trial wasn't about Plame's status -- even though the jurors afterwords said it was all about Plame's status, and they felt bad for Libby as he was the fall guy. That's why the Libby trial was such a joke.

Fitzpatrick, the great Fede... (Below threshold)
kim:

Fitzpatrick, the great Federal prosecutor, moved heaven and earth to prevent Scooter Libby from confronting his accuser.

The Appellate Court will not be amused.
=======================

Kim do you stay up 24/7 obs... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Kim do you stay up 24/7 obsessing about this? You're bordering on being a sicko about it.

By the way, of what CRIMES was Libby convicted? Just once address the real issue. Can you mouth it, say it, write it or will your head explode if you tell the truth?

Yes, whether Plame was covert or not is irrelevant to his conviction for lying and obstruction of justice.

The jury thought Plame was ... (Below threshold)
kim:

The jury thought Plame was covert because Fitz sneaked it in, and some thought he should be pardonned because he was the 'fall' guy. Fitz sneaking her covertness in will be an issue for the appellate court. It is not really irrelevant. If it were, why would so much effort be made to confuse you about her status.

There are more than me sick about this miscarriage of justice, and you should be sick, too. Blind with BDS, you can't see overweening prosecution. Even Jeralyn Merritt thinks Fitz is out of line.
============================

Once again, you can't write... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Once again, you can't write the truth. Sad. Talk about a derangement syndrome.

Lets see if I can help you. When a person raises his/her hand and swears an oath to tell the truth before a grand jury and lies - what would that crime be Kim?

Thos who are sick about it have PlameDerangementSyndrome- as you clearly have.

He didn't lie. He said Rus... (Below threshold)
kim:

He didn't lie. He said Russert mentioned Plame's name in the relevant conversation, and Russert perjured himself to say that her name couldn't have come up. Don't you remember Fitz frantically keeping Andrea Mitchell off the stand who had said 'Everyone knew about Plame'. Furthermore, I believe Russert perjured himself with the aid and connivance of Fitzgerald. See upthread all the Eckenrode stuff.
==================

Give it up, JFO, you don't ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Give it up, JFO, you don't know jackshit about this case.
===========================

That little trick Fitzy did... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

That little trick Fitzy did with the closing argument is going to turn the appeal to Libby's favor. New trial I think. Then, no trial because on the technical issues, the judge will allow a covert or not covert defense. ww

When you can't utter the tr... (Below threshold)
JFO:

When you can't utter the truth and all else fails talk smack. Get help kim.

'Struth, Boo. You got nuth... (Below threshold)
kim:

'Struth, Boo. You got nuthin' but ad homs. You are dull and abusive.
==============

Yes, WW, the torturous and ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yes, WW, the torturous and tortious course this case has taken continuously torments. It ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings, which will be after she's given immunity to testify against her husband. See, he lied, the Dems believed, and when that is revealed, they'll throw him under the bus. Slam dunk. They wouldn't hesitate in a minute.
================

25-30% of the comments on a... (Below threshold)
JFO:

25-30% of the comments on a thread is ipso facto abusive. Isn't it called hijacking in the parlance oh "clever" one.

Kerry, Bless his medal pitc... (Below threshold)
kim:

Kerry, Bless his medal pitchin' little heart, doesn't even have to hesitate. He's irked by the fact Joe's back on his feet and would pitch him again if it gets out that Kerry swallowed his lies in May of '03. Where are his remarks about Joe Wilson?

Another thing to torment Kerry is that if he had stuck with Joe after the SSCI revealed his lies, then he might be President today. It would be nice to think Kerry did it because he no longer trusted Joe, but it would be more consistent to think that Kerry simply calculated that Joe couldn't withstand Republican attacks. As he couldn't if it weren't for Fitz and his absurd prosecution. Like Quixote with a tactical nuclear weapon slung under Rosinante.
=====================================

Got something to say about ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Got something to say about the topic of the thread, Dipso Factoid?
===================================

Kerry was for Wilson before... (Below threshold)
kim:

Kerry was for Wilson before he was against Wilson. Now where is he? Inquiring minds want to know. His answer might be critical, and he knows it.
=============================

kim is full of shit before ... (Below threshold)
OBGyns pracicing their love:

kim is full of shit before she was full of shit after she was full of shit and still is full of shit.

Wow. I haven't visitied ths... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

Wow. I haven't visitied thsi site in a while, and I see that Kim is still spewing the same blather. Kim, I see you're still hijacking threads by declaring yourself an "expert" and suggesting that your superior knowledge somehow means that your comments should be taken at face value. It's about time you understood that the ability to regurgitate Republican talking points does not make you an expert. Your constant assertions of unsupported "facts" gets really tiring, particularly when you manage to ignore every counter argument. You're playing the game of repeating urban myths, and acting as if they've been established as facts.

First, Victoria Toensing, in addition to being ONE of the authors of the IIPA, is a rabid partisan. Her authorship of the act does not automatically confer the mantle of truth on all of her comments. She is constantly presdented as someone who is in a position to evaluate Plame's covert status, but one important element is missing. She has no special knowledge of Plame's activities or whereabout in the last five years. Simply knowing what the act says, or even what it's intended to mean, does not qualify one to judge every alleged violation of the act.

And failure to indict is not proof of innocence. You guys put so much stock in the fact that Fitz didn't indict Armitage. Prosecutors bring indictments they think they can win. There could be several reasons why Fitz thought an Armitage conviction could be difficult, including proving intent. And I have yet to see anyone address the logical fallacy that an obstructed investigation is proof of innocence becuase no one was indicted. That's why obstruction is such a serious charge, because it prevents thorough investigations. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

As for the Southern District of New York nonsense, you clearly have just pulled that out of your ass. Are you really trying to say Schumer controlled the DOJ, and as proof you offer up the amazing fact that many of the top people in the Department were in the Southern District? You know, the legal center of the entire nation? Do you realize how many lawyers come out of that district? Throw enough dots against a wall, and you can "connect" them to paint any picture you want.

The sheer volume of your misinformation is clearly a tactic, since I certainly have no inclination to continually refute everything point by point. Suffice it to say that I see enough of your half baked half truths to recognize that you have no more credibility in this argument than a drunk on a barstool. Here's just a couple: "Like Harlow blowing to Novak." Please tell me what Harlow is supposed to say when Novak tells him he's about to expose her? And admit that if he had said nothing, you would use this as evidence that the CIA wasn't trying to protect her status.

"Like Joe Wilson blowing about his wife the CIA agent in green rooms all over America." I assume you're referring to the one occasion in which a right wing partisan makes the wholly unsupported allegation that Wilson spilled the beans to him in a green room. Despite all of the allegations about how "everyone knew" about Plame, or that Wilson bragged about her CIA work at cocktail parties, I have seen exactly two sources who back up that story, and both are right wing water carriers. How interesting that die hard Democrat Wilson picked thopse two to confide in. And out of all of that pary chatter, not one person has come forward with first hand knowledge of that happening. What BS.

Now you can proceed to ignore any of the points I've made, because as the resident "expert" on the cae you shouldn't be required to actually back up your assertions with facts.

Way to go, ChrisO.... (Below threshold)
OBGyns practicinjg their love:

Way to go, ChrisO.

This silly harpie won't be around to answer any of your points, however. She's just hit & run; substance & kim are oxymoronic.

Kim,Did you see that... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Kim,
Did you see that George Soros sent a truck full of cash to Judge Walton this morning? Explains a lot doesn't it.

No, I missed that AB, but H... (Below threshold)
kim:

No, I missed that AB, but Harlow is working for NBC and ghostwrit, poorly, Tenet's book.

Chris O, you really haven't made many points. The defense had five people ready to say that Joe Wilson had talked about his wife at the CIA. Are you still claiming she was covert?

Why did Harlow have to say anything? Except maybe to his superiors to try to get them to stop publication by Novak?

I don't put much stock in the argument about Armitage except insofar as it proves bad faith from Fitz, who wasn't interested in the leaker, but in prosecuting an imaginary leaker at the White House, and insofar as it proves desperately bad faith and cowardice on Armitage's fault, who never would have admitted leaking to Woodward if Woodward hadn't forced the question. Fitz was either too stupid or too biased to ask Armitage if he had leaked to anyone but Novak.

About Schumer, let the verdict of history decide. To whatever degree he controlled Muller, McCarthy, McNulty, and Comey, that influence is in the past. Backstabbing careerists now have shortened careers in the DoJ, at least the ones stabbing the backs of the White House. Where are those last three now?
========================

Also, Chris, I'm sure you a... (Below threshold)
kim:

Also, Chris, I'm sure you are not trying to say that there are certain circumstances in the life of Val Plame that would make those laws provisions applicable despite the failure of the statutory requirements to be met? This is somehow individual application of the rule of law that is supposed to apply to everyone? Think this through before you take your Bar exam.
===========================

Kim, don't forget Joe Wilso... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Kim, don't forget Joe Wilson and Plame listed in Who's Who of the Washington crowd. Oh yeah. Anrea Mitchell saying everyone new Plame worked at the CIA. Like another thread above, the dimmers love spinning the facts. "Just because someone isn't indicted doesn't mean there innocent, the procecutor just can't prove it." That comment from a lefty loon says it all. They really are moronic. ww

"About Schumer, let the ... (Below threshold)
OBGyns practicing their love:

"About Schumer, let the verdict of history decide" kim

The verdict of history will likely note that someone has left the door open to your padded cell and left the ward computer not locked down.

Call tech support, quack; y... (Below threshold)
kim:

Call tech support, quack; your keyboard has only ad homs in it. Can't you sue it for malpractice or do you share responsibility?
===================

Wow.I'm a bit surp... (Below threshold)
jim:

Wow.

I'm a bit surprised to see people still clinging to the "Sandy Berger destroyed original documents" meme, which is thoroughly and fully discredited by investigation and testimony....

But I'm just straight shocked to see that there's still denial about Valerie Plame's covert status.

Come on, guys. Really. She was covert. Even if you get into the most legalistic reading of that statute, she was sent overseas on missions repeatedly for several years in a row, up until her cover was blown. That gives her covert status.

Which is not to mention the... (Below threshold)
jim:

Which is not to mention the fact that not even the Bush administration refutes her covert status. If she had no covert status, you can bet that is the *first* thing they would say.

That would have made this entire investigation unnecessary, and would have made it so that Scooter woudln't have even had to sit on a witness stand. Let alone Karl Rove.

Why, if Plame was not covert, hasn't the White House stated she wasn't covert?

What are you stupid Jim?<... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

What are you stupid Jim?

You knew damn well that the White House cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. Fitz knew the source from the beginning making him , like you and the party of democrats , SERIAL LIARS. stfu.

Democrats only speak to lie.

You knew damn well that ... (Below threshold)
jim:

You knew damn well that the White House cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.

Or before an investigation? Or after an investigation??

They could talk about it now, tho, right? Since the investigation's over, right?

More importantly, Libby could have used that in his defence, couldn't he? Why didn't he?

stfu.

That's quite a refutal. I have one for you:

Start Thinking For yUrself.

"The defense had five peopl... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

"The defense had five people ready to say that Joe Wilson had talked about his wife at the CIA. Are you still claiming she was covert?"

You never give up, do you Kim? Once again, making a statement of fact without even pretending to think you need to back it up. If these are five people with first hand knowledge (they are the ones Wilson told) then who are they? And more to the point, why haven't they taken up permanent residence on Hannity and Limbaugh? Do you really mean to tell us that the Republicans would have this kind of evidence and not use it? You seem to think in the case of Armitage that Fitz's inaction is proof that no crime was committed. I'd say the fact that these people haven't been brought forward proves that their stories don't hold up.

And by the way, nice attention to detail. If Bill Harlow ghostwrote Tenet's book, why is the book's authorship credited to "George Tenet, with Bill Harlow"? Doesn't sound very ghosty to me.

"Also, Chris, I'm sure you are not trying to say that there are certain circumstances in the life of Val Plame that would make those laws provisions applicable despite the failure of the statutory requirements to be met?"

I have no idea what that sentence even means.

And WildWillie: "Who's Who?" Really? As many times as that's been blown out of the water? Now you're not even trying.

ChrisO, you forget that Lib... (Below threshold)
kim:

ChrisO, you forget that Libby's defense tried hard to bring up and refute Plame's covertness and was stymied by Fitz and Walton. Then Fitz slipped it in at closing and in the sentencing phase. You have been told this many times, and are not getting the message. This is one of the grounds for appeal.

Novak testified at the trial that he used Who's Who. It is abundantly obvious that you have not read the trial transcript. What's debunked about Who's Who? It's boring talking to ignoramuses, but amusing to see how sure you are that you have a point.

Hayden, by the way, has not said she is covert. You are supposing he said something like that from what Waxman said as he was waving a letter from Hayden around. The hand is quicker than the eye, and you haven't been paying attention.

Val was not covert for purposes of the two statutes that could apply in the 'outing' of a spy. She was 'covert' by informal definition at the CIA, and she was 'classified'. When you can show me why her being 'classified' was important to Fitz, then I'll judge you can opine pertinently about 'covert'. Start guessing.
============

Well, Chris, there are ghos... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, Chris, there are ghosts, and there are ghosts. I have no idea how much of that book is Tenet's and how much Harlow. I do know it is poorly written and self contradictory. It is precisely the sort of tome that historians will sneer at for its attempt to be self-serving, and its utter failure at reception, or is it completion. It was a Hail Mary that is still being fumbled.
================================

And jim, even at this late ... (Below threshold)
kim:

And jim, even at this late date I'm glad you are catching on to one of the criticism's of Fitz. If she was not covert, why the investigation.

Well, the answer is that Fitz became convinced early and mistakenly that the White House had been involved in a campaign to publicize Val's name. He knew very early that the two possible statutes would not apply because she did not meet the statutory standard of 'covert'. So he hammered on Libby until he found something he could leverage him with. He expected Libby to cave and implicate a higher up. The problem was that the conspiracy was imagined. Libby couldn't have fingered Rove or Cheney, or anyone, because THERE HADN'T BEEN A CONSPIRACY. So Fitz's bluff failed and he ended up having to prosecute the pitiful case that he had, which he'd intended to give Libby immunity for anyway. Then came the Woodward revelations about Armitage, and the only reason Fitz persisted is that he is a monomaniac and believed that he was still accomplishing justice by punishing the White House. Had he been supervised, this would have stopped years ago. As it is, his first effective supervision will be the Appellate Court, and it will be a shock to him.
============================

A shock to Walton, too. Sh... (Below threshold)
kim:

A shock to Walton, too. Shoulda been a mistrial right when Fitz brought up Plame's covertness in closing. They both knew that Libby was prevented from answering that charge(confronting his accuser), and they denied his civil rights, right there, right that moment. That's fundamental right here in America.
==================

Chris, if you have no idea ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Chris, if you have no idea what that sentence means, then I am sure you are not trying to say it. There is a missing possessive apostrophe, but fundamentally we seem to agree that the statutory requirements of a law must be met, no matter what Plame was doing.
============================

Hey JFO, I've broken throug... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey JFO, I've broken through the difficult 30% barrier. Rapidly approaching the magical One Third of One Thread. A lovely trick to cap it off.
===========================

I want all you leftwing wac... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

I want all you leftwing wacko's twits to repeat after me. Now listen close-ready? Here we go -------PAR DOOOOOOON.
By the way JFO PrepH will make it much easier for you to get Kim's foot out of your ass.

OK Kim, it's a pain having ... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

OK Kim, it's a pain having to take you apart point by point again, but here goes:

"Novak testified at the trial that he used Who's Who. It is abundantly obvious that you have not read the trial transcript. What's debunked about Who's Who?" First of all, big expert, Who's Who has been discussed since long before the trial started. Did you really need the transcript to know about it? A little late to the party, aren't you? Novak stormed off the set at CNN shortly after the story broke when he spotted a copy of Who's Who on the table. Now try to comprehend this very difficult concept. Who's Who confirmed that Wilson's wife was Valerie Plame. You know who else had that bit of sensitive information? Their families. Their neighbors. Anyone who was at their wedding. Anyone who met Val's parent, Mr. and Mrs. Plame. I suppose if Novak figured out where they lved by looking in the phone book, you'd be blaming Joe for letting the phone company publish such sensitive information. Nothing in Who's Who said she was in the CIA. That was the part that was secret. What don't you get about that? It really is annoying having to go back over the basics with you.

As for Walton refusing to let Libby introduce evidence about Plame's covert status, that's because, unlike you, he recognizes a red herring when he sees one. Plame's status had nothing to do with Libby obstructing justice. If she wasn't even covert, he sure made a miscalculation lying about his actions, didn't he? Oops.

And please support your BS statement that Fitz "snuck in" information about Plame being covert. He referred to Craig Schmall's testimony that he told Libby and the VP about the possible negative consequences of Plame's outing. It's not a mistrial for the prosecution to refer to testimony that was presented and not objected to. What kind of idiotic theory is that? The jury heard Schmall's testimoy, but it's somehow underhanded for Fitz to refer back to it? Please explain, with reasoning behind your assertions for a change, why that shouldn't be allowed. Fitz was making the point about how important this whole issue was, while Libby was lying and saying it was no big deal. Schmall's testimony goes to the heart of the case. Libby's being told by his CIA briefer that his actions could lead to people being exposed and killed, and Libby's saying that wouldn't have been important enough for him to remember? Face it, the guy's a bad liar.

And by the way, Walton properly instructed the jury that they should not take Schmall's testimony as an indication of Plame'c covert status, and that her status will not be a consideration in the trial. Of course, you'd know that if you reasd the transcript like you tell everyone else to. Oh wait, I forgot, you know more about this cae than anyone in the world. What a crock.

And by the way, have you noticed that you've been wrong on every point you've made so far? Not very impressive.

Heh, Chris, Novak got that ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Heh, Chris, Novak got that Wilson's wife was in the CIA from Armitage. He got the name Val Plame from Who's Who.

Fitzgerald illegitimately brought up her covertness in closing and in sentencing. It is an appeal issue. I have no idea why you think he didn't. You are wrong.
=========================

You yourself say that Walto... (Below threshold)
kim:

You yourself say that Walton instructed the jury to ignore what Fitz had just said. The problem is that he said it after Libby no longer had a chance to refute him. The judge asking the jury no ignore what has been said in the courtroom is not adequately protecting the defendent's right to confront his accuser.

This is Constitution 10l, counsellor.
===================================

I have a theory that Novak'... (Below threshold)
kim:

I have a theory that Novak's two sources were actually one; that Rove heard from someone Novak told.
=========================

That would explain Fitz's s... (Below threshold)
kim:

That would explain Fitz's sensing a conspiracy where there was none.
===========================

Well, that and that he beli... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, that and that he believed the Lying Joe Wilson. He should have put him under oath. Approaching two hundred comments, and no one is defending Val Plame's modest, self-effacing husband.

When are you going to give it up?
================================

"Wrong on every point"? Wh... (Below threshold)
kim:

"Wrong on every point"? Whew, hyperbole is unbecoming, Chris O. Try another point.
===========================

That's not a vag tear, that... (Below threshold)
kim:

That's not a vag tear, that's from an eye peekin' at you, you pitiful pile of piss poor protoplasm and ad homs. Chris hasn't touched me.

Aren't you even curious who told Rove after talking to Novak, thus creating the circularity that made Fitz see a mirage? It was Hohlte.
========================================

jhow66, whaddya bet this qu... (Below threshold)
kim:

jhow66, whaddya bet this quack queenologist is just JFO's sockpuppet with retrograde peristalsis.
===============================

Ob gets a thrill all over t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ob gets a thrill all over this morning. You know it when you feel it.

It is Fitzgerald with the imaginary conspiracy; it is Walton with the ignorance and the lack of shame to let this thing go on.

At sentencing, Walton chastized the defense about not asking for discovery previously. This is outrageous. Libby's civil rights have been violated, but not by a conspiracy between Fitz and Walton. H/T JMH.
=============================

Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft believes the refusal to allow the memory expert witness testimony is the strongest issue at appeal. Clarice Feldman believes it is the unusual appointment, and I believe she includes the lack of supervision in that. I think there at least a half dozen other issues which were clear miscarriages, starting with Eckenrode, including NBC and Mitchell, and ending with the suggestion of coverness. I even have a feeling the Appellate court will go beyond reversing, or remanding, and may declare Libby innocent, and chastize Fitz.

It is that bad, folks.
================

"I even have a feeling t... (Below threshold)
OBGyns practicing their love:

"I even have a feeling the Appellate court will go beyond reversing, or remanding, and may declare Libby innocent," kim, amateur conspiract theorist

Counseloretess, you are bat-shit delusional.

John Dean sees only 2 appellate issues (not your BM theories)and thinks reversal unlikely.

Better get l'il Scoots that tube of KY & post it next-day delivery before his ass ends up in the air in the Big House.

What are John Dean's two po... (Below threshold)
kim:

What are John Dean's two potential issues?

How can you type with that stuff all over your fingers and keyboard?
===========================

Do you know why 'a quart lo... (Below threshold)
kim:

Do you know why 'a quart low' is the punch bowl of every joke, now?
=======================================

Speaking of someone a quart... (Below threshold)
kim:

Speaking of someone a quart low, go read what Susan Estrich has to say about Fitzgerald and Libby.
====================================

Kim. Kimmy. Kimster. Back a... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

Kim. Kimmy. Kimster. Back away from the keyboard. You can only dig so deep a hole for yourself before it becomes dangerous.

How can you keep asking people to back up what they're saying, when you clearly refuse to do the same. You really are in love with your supposed "expertise," aren't you?

I've asked a few simple questions, none of which you have answered (and no, "you're wrong" does not qualify as an answer.)

1. If the fact that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson wasn't a secret, then what does it matter if the information was in Who's Who or anywhere else? Who's Who may have been the closest reference at hand, but it's no different than getting someone's address from the phone book. Again, anyone involved in the Wilson's life would know her maiden name was Plame. Please establish why you think this was secret information.

2. In his closing, Fitzgerald referred to testimony that had been presented in open court, with no objection sustained against it. How can this be prejudicial? Libby's attorney asked for a bench conference, after which Fitz made it clear that he was talking about the effect Schmall's comments wqould have had on Libby, and whether it was reasonable to think that he wouldn't have remembered them. If someone came to me and said "Your children have been murdered," the fact that it later proved to be false would have no bearing on how I reacted to the news. Whether true or false, it wouldn't be excluded from testimony, nor should it.

3. I'm still waiting for the names of the five people who were ready to testify that Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA.

"You yourself say that Walton instructed the jury to ignore what Fitz had just said." I see now why you're so wrong on everything. You have a complete inability to process information. Walton did not instruct the jury to ignore what Fitz said, and I never said that. He instructed the jury that Schmall's comments shouldn't be taken as testimony about Plame's status. He never told them to "ignore" anything.

See, you should really stop telling people to "read the transcript." Sometimes they do, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and Kim, my father-in-l... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

Oh, and Kim, my father-in-law lives in the Southern District of New York. Can he be one of your dots? I thought it would be nice to let him be part of a massive conspiracy as a Father's Day present.

Just so I'm clear, does your conspiracy include every lawyer in New York, or just the government lawyers? Because if it's every lawyer, you might find that some people are skeptical.

Wait a minute. t's all becoming clear to me now. Rudy Giuliani was US Attorney for the Southern District. This conspiracy reaches farther than we thought. Do the authorities know about this?

Rudy says the prosecution o... (Below threshold)
kim:

Rudy says the prosecution of Libby was incomprehensible and the sentence not just. Yes, there are more than three Schumer henchmen from the Southern District of New York and even more attorneys from there who are not.

However you want to characterize it, Fitz's mentioning of her covertness was illegitimate, objected to by the judge, and the jury admonished to not understand Fitz in a certain way. This was prejudicial, unanswerable by Libby and a violation of his civil rights.

Hey, take my advice and read Susan Estrich. Not all of the appellate judges are going to be looking at this case through BDS encrusted eyes, and Walton let Fitz get away with enough mischievous process to keep a dozen judges busy.
=======================

The latest idea circulating... (Below threshold)
kim:

The latest idea circulating the sphere has Bush commuting Libby's sentence to something similar to Berger's. This would allow the appeal process to continue, which is key to finding the truth and correcting Fitz's abuses and Walton's disregard.
============================

Hoo, hah, the Mitchell thin... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hoo, hah, the Mitchell thing is prominent among the appeal items as are the appointment of Fitz, and the exclusion of the memory expert. JustOneMinute has it all.
================================

And read Cathyf in the 'Jus... (Below threshold)
kim:

And read Cathyf in the 'Justice for Libby' thread about the appeal process, and commutation, and pardon. She agrees with me it is better to let the process go forward. There is no reason the Justice Department and the Appellate Courts can't right this injustice.
==============================


So is this your multiple po... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

So is this your multiple post way of saying you don't have an answer to my questions?

You're blathering about Who... (Below threshold)
kim:

You're blathering about Who's Who, and your wrong about Fitz and the mention of covertness in the closing. Joe and Val were at the May 2003 Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting blowing about the CIA, but those Senators are not among the people willing to testify that Joe was loose-lipped.

Remember Andrea Mitchell, and 'everyone knew'. Notice she is among the issues for the appellate court. Her not testifying covered Russert's perjury and Fitz's chicanery. It'll all unwind, yet.

Appellate Court judges despise this kind of monkey business, and their main social role is to do so.
============================

So I ask who the five peopl... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

So I ask who the five people are willing to testify about Wilson revealing his wife's status, and you respond by telling me who wasn't willing to testify?

And in response to my direct question about Who's Who, you just call it blather?

Are you bipolar?

You and I have been crosspo... (Below threshold)
kim:

You and I have been crossposting alternate points about Who's Who. I agree it's not very important in the trial. It does bear on her covertness, or the CIA's tradecraft, remember 'affirmative actions', though.

Andrea Mitchell, "Everyone knew". Under oath, there will be more than five who knew about Val Plame. It was not a secret. What was the Woodward quote from Armitage, something about the asshole Wilson is blabbing it all over town? Here's a puzzle for you; you find the five. Here's a harder puzzle. How come Fitz couldn't find five? Everyone knew, after all. Russert, Mitchell, Cooper, Gregory, Armitage, Woodward, Novak, Kristoff, Kerry, Kennedy, there are a whole lot more. You've apparently forgotten my contention that the White House was the last to know that the CIA person who sent Joe Wilson was the lying ambassador's wife.
=====================

Whaddya think of Susan Estr... (Below threshold)
kim:

Whaddya think of Susan Estrich's article? You know the Snake, James Carville signed a letter of support for Libby along with his wife?
=================================

And don't give me Andy McCa... (Below threshold)
kim:

And don't give me Andy McCarthy. Jeralyn Merritt, a leftist defense attorney thinks the exclusion of the memory expert is the most potent appealable point, and McCarthy, the righty prosecutor, minimizes 'memory foibles' as prevalent in every case. Yeah, but not every case is he said, she said, either, and it is difficult to understand how Russert's memory improved.

What is Andy, from the Southern District of New York, or something?
=========================

Read Reynolds Holding in Ti... (Below threshold)
kim:

Read Reynolds Holding in Time Magazine about how Fitz bringing up Val's covertiness in the sentencing phase violates Libby's civil rights.

You're wrong, ChrisO. You should start trusting my naked allegations.
==============

Ajami, in the OpinionJourna... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ajami, in the OpinionJournal righteously contrasts Armitage's, that's Sir Richard to you, conduct with Libby's. I disagree that pardon at this step is the right thing to do. Commutation, yes, if Scooter faces jail, but the appeals process is the only way the truth of this matter will come out.

It seems the 'supervision' of Fitz will be an issue. I entertain the notion that he was in fact 'supervised', by someone with an agenda. Why else pursue Libby beyond all reason and sense?

So who supervised him? Schumer? Rockefeller?
============================

Oh, Boy! Bork, Dershowitz,... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, Boy! Bork, Dershowitz, and ten other professors weighing in on the Constitutionality of Fitzgerald's appointment. Their point is that he is unique, and thus that the appeal has merit, and it needs adjudication.

This was the latest iteration of the Star Chamber. Indeed, how does a body investigate itself?
============================

So can you tell me yet why ... (Below threshold)
kim:

So can you tell me yet why the meaning of 'classified' is important? First, to Fitz, as some sort of poor proxy for 'covert' with which to perform his legerdemain, and now, in the context of him having two contradictory filings about the handling of 'classified' material, and Cathyf's proof of Fitz's perjury in the JustOneMinute thread about Libby's Plea?
=====================================

The Twelve professors also ... (Below threshold)
kim:

The Twelve professors also bring up that Libby wasn't allowed to address Mitchell's statement about 'everyone knew'.

The New York Sun has a nice article with a typo in it. They substitute 'Libby' for 'Fitz'.
================================

Walton has jumped the shark... (Below threshold)
kim:

Walton has jumped the shark something awful. He has gotten snide with the twelve professors about their pro bono work.

The point is made that these twelve, and others may be ready to jump in with friend of the court briefs on many of the other appeal issues. It is noted over at JOM that they have acted expeditiously and only enough to present the issue as worthy of bail while appealing. They have a lot more up their sleeves and Walton is either stupider than I've been judging him lately, or getting desperate. I think it is the latter. Fitz was unsurpervised and so was Walton, and the referees just checked in at the scorer's table.
======================

This isn't the only blog th... (Below threshold)
kim:

This isn't the only blog the leftist comments have dried up on. Bork, Dershowitz, et al, have thrown a monkey wrench into the works. The evil works, I might add.
======================

Read Roger Aranoff in 'Accu... (Below threshold)
kim:

Read Roger Aranoff in 'Accuracy in Media', about this Plame/Libby thing. It is an excellent review of the subject. He also says it's time to investigate Val Plame for her changing stories on how her husband got sent to Africa. You do know that he went there at least four times for the CIA? Surely Cheney didn't send him all four times, like in 1999.
=====================================




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:

tips@wizbangblog.com

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