Democrats to Bush: Don't pardon Libby [title changed]

Little-Acorn · 03-07-07, 03:05 PM

As you may recall, the matter was over a supposed "outing" of Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert agent in the CIA. Someone supposedly "leaked" that information to a journalist, thus blowing her cover.

Now the verdict is in: There was not even enough evidence to charge Scooter Libby with such a leak, much less convict him. Nor was there enough evidence to charge anyone else. In fact, it turns out that Plame wasn't an undercover agent at all when the information was published, so the act wasn't a crime in the first place.

Prosecutors found early in the investigation that the (unclassified) information had been provided by someone else - Richard Armitage of the State Department. And they knew by then that the release wasn't a crime at all - hence the absence of any such charges against Armitage or anyone else.

During the investigation, Libby was questioned closely and repeatedly about conversations that had happened years before. On a few, Libby rememberd the details one way. When re-questioned on the same thing later, he remembered them a different way. Later still, he remembered them the first way again.

For this, he was indicted for perjury, convicted, and now faces up to twenty years in a Federal prison. He has exhausted his savings and bankrupted his family defending himself .

This is the result of an investigation that established, after three years, that no crime had been committed at all in the first place.

Got him!

-------------------------------------

OpinionJournal - from The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

from "Best of the Web Today" by James Taranto
March 6, 2007

The Libby Travesty Democrats to Bush: Don't pardon Libby - CNN.com

We won't gainsay the jury's verdict in the Scooter Libby trial--"guilty" on four of five counts on perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. Life is too short to immerse oneself in the tedious details of the case. (If you're interested in Libby minutiae, we recommend Tom Maguire JustOneMinute .) But it remains a travesty that Libby was ever prosecuted to begin with.

This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:

-On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the
famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address,
contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.

-Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the Niger
junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.

-Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of
his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.

-No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA functionary
to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard Armitage at the
State Department.

Libby stands convicted of lying in the course of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle--but that investigation was undertaken on the basis of a tissue of lies. When Fitzgerald began the case, in 2003, no one had committed any crime in connection with the kerfuffle, and that was fairly easy to ascertain, given that Plame was not a covert agent and Armitage had already owned up to the so-called leak. Fitzgerald looks like an overzealous prosecutor, one who was more interested in getting a scalp than in getting to the truth of the matter.

Of course, Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation.

Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.

jallman · 03-07-07, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

As you may recall, the matter was over a supposed "outing" of Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert agent in the CIA. Someone supposedly "leaked" that information to a journalist, thus blowing her cover.

Now the verdict is in: There was not even enough evidence to charge Scooter Libby with such a leak, much less convict him. Nor was there enough evidence to charge anyone else. In fact, it turns out that Plame wasn't an undercover agent at all when the information was published, so the act wasn't a crime in the first place.

Prosecutors found early in the investigation that the (unclassified) information had been provided by someone else - Richard Armitage of the State Department. And they knew by then that the release wasn't a crime at all - hence the absence of any such charges against Armitage or anyone else.

During the investigation, Libby was questioned closely and repeatedly about conversations that had happened years before. On a few, Libby rememberd the details one way. When re-questioned on the same thing later, he remembered them a different way. Later still, he remembered them the first way again.

For this, he was indicted for perjury, convicted, and now faces up to twenty years in a Federal prison. He has exhausted his savings and bankrupted his family defending himself .

This is the result of an investigation that established, after three years, that no crime had been committed at all in the first place.

Got him!

-------------------------------------

OpinionJournal - from The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

from "Best of the Web Today" by James Taranto
March 6, 2007

The Libby Travesty Democrats to Bush: Don't pardon Libby - CNN.com

We won't gainsay the jury's verdict in the Scooter Libby trial--"guilty" on four of five counts on perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. Life is too short to immerse oneself in the tedious details of the case. (If you're interested in Libby minutiae, we recommend Tom Maguire JustOneMinute .) But it remains a travesty that Libby was ever prosecuted to begin with.

This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:

-On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the
famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address,
contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.

-Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the Niger
junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.

-Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of
his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.

-No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA functionary
to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard Armitage at the
State Department.

Libby stands convicted of lying in the course of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle--but that investigation was undertaken on the basis of a tissue of lies. When Fitzgerald began the case, in 2003, no one had committed any crime in connection with the kerfuffle, and that was fairly easy to ascertain, given that Plame was not a covert agent and Armitage had already owned up to the so-called leak. Fitzgerald looks like an overzealous prosecutor, one who was more interested in getting a scalp than in getting to the truth of the matter.

Of course, Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation.

Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.

No, he was not exonerated. He was found guilty of perjury before a grand jury. That is a serious offense. I fully believe he should be pardoned, but the fact is, he perjured himself and that is what he was found guilty of by a jury. What is it about justice and jury trials that you hate so much?

aps · 03-07-07, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Now the verdict is in: There was not even enough evidence to charge Scooter Libby with such a leak, much less convict him. Nor was there enough evidence to charge anyone else. In fact, it turns out that Plame wasn't an undercover agent at all when the information was published, so the act wasn't a crime in the first place.

Ahhhh, and this shows how little you understand this case. Fitzgerald was unable to make a determination about whether to bring charges on violating the statute regarding leaking the name of a covert agent. If you recall, Fitzgerald said the following at his press conference in October 2005 when addressing Libby's indictment:

Quote:

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

If you read through Fitzgerald's response, what he is saying is that because Libby LIED, he was unable to make a determination about whether or not the statute had been violated. So you and all the Bush/Cheney sympathizers can say how bogus the investigation was, but that doesn't change the fact that Libby lied and prevented the prosecutor from doing his job. I said this in the Libby thread, our judicial system is based on people telling the truth. Why do you think EVERY SINGLE PERSON who testifies must testify under oath? For their health? NO. It's the only way to get to the bottom of the facts. Thus, when someone fails to tell the truth, you can't get to the bottom of the facts. It's why perjury and false statements are crimes. For some people, they need the threat of being charged with a crime to tell the truth.

Plame's status at the CIA was, at a minimum, classified. This is what Fitzgerald said:

Quote:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

The Bush/Cheney sympathizers all say the same thing, "Everyone knew she worked for the CIA behind a desk."

Get your facts straight before you tout them as being true.

Little-Acorn · 03-07-07, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

No, he was not exonerated.

In the initial affair of the so-called "leak" (you know, the one that the investigation was actually about) he was exonerated.

After three years, they were unable to come up with any evidence against Libby, or even evidence that any crime had been committed at all. In fact, Plame was not a covert agent when the journalist learned she worked for the CIA. And the prosecutor knew that, early in the investigation.

The rest was a witch hunt. Libby finally screwed up, failing to remember exactly what he had said and heard two years ago. So he faces 20 years hard time for it.

I wonder who you Democrats will "investigate" next?

Goobieman · 03-07-07, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Now the verdict is in: There was not even enough evidence to charge Scooter Libby with such a leak, much less convict him. Nor was there enough evidence to charge anyone else. In fact, it turns out that Plame wasn't an undercover agent at all when the information was published, so the act wasn't a crime in the first place.

Prosecutors found early in the investigation that the (unclassified) information had been provided by someone else - Richard Armitage of the State Department. And they knew by then that the release wasn't a crime at all - hence the absence of any such charges against Armitage or anyone else.

You are correct. None of the charges involved the illegal release of information regarding the purported 'exposing' of Plame.

jallman · 03-07-07, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

You are correct. None of the charges involved the illegal release of information regarding the purported 'exposing' of Plame.

That was not what he was indicted on. He was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury before a grand jury. That is also what he was found guilty of. You may continue to smokescreen the issue by referring to the original cause of the investigation, but the facts are that he was found guilty of lying to a grand jury.

Little-Acorn · 03-07-07, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

smokescreen the issue by referring to the original cause of the investigation

I can think of no better demonstration of the sickness of our brethern on the left, than this admission of their complete lack of concern for this attempt at discovering truth and establishing justice.

I wonder who the Democrats will "investigate" next?

Goobieman · 03-07-07, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

If you read through Fitzgerald's response, what he is saying is that because Libby LIED, he was unable to make a determination about whether or not the statute had been violated.

Gee.. suppose that was the plan?

And where are all the things YOU said would come from this trial?

talloulou · 03-07-07, 03:41 PM

This is very similar to those who claim Clinton's only wrong doing was a blow job and we shouldn't be concerned about who is giving who a blow job. That's bull$hit.

He, like Libby, was convicted of being a big fat liar!

And like Clinton, Libby will probably not pay highly for his crime.

jallman · 03-07-07, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

In the initial affair of the so-called "leak" (you know, the one that the investigation was actually about) he was exonerated.

After three years, they were unable to come up with any evidence against Libby, or even evidence that any crime had been committed at all. In fact, Plame was not a covert agent when the journalist learned she worked for the CIA. And the prosecutor knew that, early in the investigation.

The rest was a witch hunt. Libby finally screwed up, failing to remember exactly what he had said and heard two years ago. So he faces 20 years hard time for it.

I wonder who you Democrats will "investigate" next?

First of all, brain child, I am not a Democrat so take your partisanship and...well, you know what you can do with it.

The bottom line is this: the crime Libby was indicted for and found guilty of was perjury and obstruction of justice. He perjured himself and he was found guilty of it. You can talk about Plame's covert status until you are blue in the face, but you will not deflect from the core issue which is that he perjured himself and obstructed justice. Nothing else is relevant to the issue of those indictments.

However, because the continued investigation was politically charged after Armitage was determined to be the leak, I would have no problem with Libby receiving a full political pardon. The Justice Department has made its point.