October 28, 2005
Ouch! That's gotta hurt: Libby indictment describes the lies behind the message
Scooter Libby is in deep do-do. Fair is fair however; an indictment is only one side of the story; in this case, Patrick Fitzgerald’s side. But if half of this is true, Scooter will still be making the same friends that Martha Stewart made, just for a longer amount of time.
I read the indictment (link). It appears that Libby hasn't been entirely truthful. One might say; he lied like a rug. But hey, that's for a jury to decide. It's evident that Scooter knew that the information about Plame was confidential because he told another person NOT to disclose the information to the press. Jeeze… Scooter, ever take your own advise?
But the indictment should also be of some interest to others too; notably, Rove and Cheney (known in the indictment as Official A and VP). These guys have got some 'splaining' to do:
Granted there are some other players that were discussed, notably the Under Secretary of State and the White House Press Secretary (at that time it was Ari Fliescher). But the brunt of this mess lies on the desks of Libby, Cheney and Rove.
Now this report is public record. It is now public record that Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States, knew of the Niger trip, its findings and ultimately knew that the Niger allegation were false. It's now public record that Cheney, when he went on television news outlets and said that he never knew Joe Wilson, was lying.
With Rove, it gets a little more complicated. He's described in the indictment as a person that discussed Plame with Novak, and that Novak was running a story about it. What's not discussed is how Rove got this information. In the indictment Rove independently spoke with Novak and later informed Scooter of the conversation. So where did Rove get this information? Did he get the information from Bush? What did Bush know? I guess we'll find that out in Rove's impending indictment.
"Hello, This is Martha Stewart."
"Um... Yes... this is Lewis Libby, my friends call me Scooter."
"Ah... Yes... I was expecting your call."
Posted by john trevisani at October 28, 2005 02:20 PMJohn,
I wouldn’t worry too much about Libby. After all, he now has the credentials to become yet another right wing talk show host like Ollie North and G Gordon Liddy.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 28, 2005 02:31 PMIf “Scooter” is guilty, he will go to jail…where he belongs.
I can say that he did the right thing. He resigned. And he should have.
“Outing” Valerie Plame was wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Posted by: Jim T at October 28, 2005 02:32 PMCheney is on record as telling Libby that Plame worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. That’s covert for those of you counting.
Working in the counterproliferation division and being a covert agent are not the same things. But besides that, what did Cheney do wrong here?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 02:55 PMIt is now public record that Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States, knew of the Niger trip, its findings and ultimately knew that the Niger allegation were false.
Ok, how exactly does Joe Wilson’s trip prove that the allegation was false? Did this trip and his findings somehow counter the British intelligence that suggested otherwise? Didn’t Wilson himself say that Iraq *HAD INDEED* contacted Niger but no sale was made?
I have to apologize, you’re going to have to spell this one out for me I’m afraid, I don’t read DailyKOS on a daily basis. :(
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 02:58 PMOh, and John, where in the indictment (yes, I’ve read it a few times now) does it say “that Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States, knew of the Niger trip, its findings and ultimately knew that the Niger allegation were false.” I see no evidence in here at all that the information that was presented to the CIA from Wilson ever made it to Cheney or was ever requested of the CIA by the Vice President’s office, only that a news report at the time suggested it.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 03:06 PMRhinehold—
Once again, it is well established that the “Yellow Cake†reports are false and that in fact Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons. I do not understand the irrational loyalty to a punch of men who have discredited our nation, subverted the law, and lied to the American people at almost every juncture. What would Bush/ Cheney and their small Army of bandits have to do before you admit that they have violated the spirit and trust of our American Republic, defiled America’s worldwide reputation, and mishandled the trust of the American people?
when will it be enough for you?
V. Edward Martin
V,
I’m sorry, I guess I’m just stupid then. No need to explain it to me I suppose, just tell me that I’m a horrible american for believing evil people.
You know, like Factcheck.org who pull from the Butler report and the 9/11 commission, saying that at the time the State of the Union speech was given, including the 16 words, that there was a strong basis for the belief and in fact according to the CIA, Wilson’s report bolstered that.
If all of that is wrong, could you please point out to a simpleton kool-aid drinker exactly how? I know, I’m asking a lot…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 03:27 PMFitzgerald and the indictment are careful not to say that Plame was a covert agent under the IIPA. The “underlying crime” is apparently release of classified information. Sandy Berger will be called to testify to the seriousness of that offense. See Fact Finding
Posted by: pbswatcher at October 28, 2005 03:29 PMRhinegold:
Oh, and John, where in the indictment (yes, I’ve read it a few times now) does it say “that Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States, knew of the Niger trip, its findings and ultimately knew that the Niger allegation were false.” I see no evidence in here at all that the information that was presented to the CIA from Wilson ever made it to Cheney or was ever requested of the CIA by the Vice President’s office, only that a news report at the time suggested it.
Are you familiar with deductive reasoning?
Now the deductive reasoning part:
If, as you assert, that Cheney knew nothing of Wilson’s report, then why didn’t he request the report that was press reported about in May? i believe, based on the dates included in the indictment, that Cheney MUST have known about it, as he never asked for a report. Libby asked for the report on June 9th. But when Libby and Cheney spoke about the report on June 12th, Cheney gave up Wilson’s wife.
It’s now public record that Cheney, when he went on television news outlets and said that he never knew Joe Wilson, was lying.
It’s worth pointing out that one of the impeachment charges reported by the House Judiciary Committee against Clinton was abuse of power because he lied about his sex life on television.
This gets worse for them:
Talking Points Memo on who told who what.
Essentially, Cheney told Libby that she worked in a division they both would know to be an operations directorate division.
That means there couldn’t have been any confusion of whether she was an analyst.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2005 03:56 PMAssertion 1: I agree.
Assertion 2: “the press”. Sorry, but I’ve seen too many things that the press report be fabrications or just plain wrong. For example, wasn’t Cheney to be indicted today, according to the press?
Assertion 3: I agree. On May 29, 2003. If Cheney had gotten the report when Wilson gave it to the CIA, wouldn’t he have already had access to it. Why would Cheney’s Chief of Staff need to get it from the CIA?
Assertion 4: Yup, that’s when he got them from his request on May 29th, 2003.
Assertion 5: Yes, Cheney knew the details of the Wilson’s wife’s role at the CIA in June, 2003.
As for the deductive reasoning…
1) I asserted that if he did know, where is it in the indictment or where is the proof that he did. You had provided none in your post and none was in the indictment.
2) Why didn’t he request the report. I believe his Chief of Staff did. You think it’s more believable that
he knew about it and hid it from his Chief of Staff who on his own requested the information
than
he requested his Chief of Staff to ‘go look into that report’?
The indictment does not detail how Cheney knew that Wilson’s wife worked at the counterintelligence department of the CIA. I would like to know that. Hover, I’m not about to make a leap of judgement about that, it would require more information than you have provided to make that ‘reasoned deduction’.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 03:57 PMRhinegold:
1) I asserted that if he did know, where is it in the indictment or where is the proof that he did. You had provided none in your post and none was in the indictment.If you’re looking for a statement in the indictment that says “Cheney received a report from the CIA that said…” it’s not there. You have to look a little deeper. Which is, what i believe, i did.
2) Why didn’t he request the report. I believe his Chief of Staff did. You think it’s more believable that he knew about it and hid it from his Chief of Staff who on his own requested the information than he requested his Chief of Staff to ‘go look into that report’?i believe differently. i believe the Cheney knew in 2002 that the State Department debunked it. i never said he hid anything. He’s the VP, he doesn’t have to hide anything. You’re asserting that Libby hid the info; it’s more plausible that Libby was in the dark in 2003 than Cheney. Posted by: john trevisani at October 28, 2005 04:16 PM
I don’t know that Cheney has done anything illegal here - unless they can prove he was part of a conspiracy to out Plame. That would be very easy to believe yet very difficult to prove without some smoking gun documents or an insider who cuts a deal to testify.
Nowhere in the indictment does it show that Cheney had any knowledge of Wilson or his report before the State of the Union. However, it is clear though that Cheney was lying in his statements on Meet the Press in September ‘03.
Rhinehold, you do yourself a disservice by clinging to the belief that Wilson’s report was wrong. Additionally, I’m still waiting for you to back up your claim that “The fact is that Joe Wilson outed his wife days after the State of the Union speech on national TV.” Please cite a source.
Posted by: Burt at October 28, 2005 04:20 PMI want to know about Cheney’s comments in Sept. 2003 - that he had no idea who Joe Wilson was and had no idea who has sent him to Niger.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/ (transcript from interview in Sept. 2003… several months after all this stuff between hiom and Libby happened.)
CHENEY LIED TO US.
I want to know about Cheney’s comments in Sept. 2003 - that he had no idea who Joe Wilson was and had no idea who has sent him to Niger.
It depends on your defintion of “know.”
What does it matter? Does anyone doubt that Libby will, in the end, be pardoned by the President? Say in January, 2009, on the 19th of that month?
Notwithstanding that perjury, false swearing, and making false statements to a federal officer undermine our entire criminal justice system!!!
Oh well…
Posted by: Howard at October 28, 2005 04:49 PMIt gets worse than that: Cheney wasn’t the first.
In early June, Libby learned about Plame from a CIA officer, a State Department official, and then from Dick Cheney. Later learned it from another official. So he learned it from at least four different officials.
From Washington Monthly
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2005 04:53 PMPresidents do seem to grant lots of pardons.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
It’s an interesting list of crimes pardoned in 2001 from altering odometers, Conspiracy to make false statements, perjury, even drug dealing.
So it’s is pretty much expected President Bush will be no different than President Clinton or the various ones before that did this. Which is why it’s not really worth all of this “fitzmas” silliness. Especially given what the indictments came out as today.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 28, 2005 04:58 PMRhinegold: (first, why the g instead of the h? You’ve been doing that recently and it confuses me…)
1) I asserted that if he did know, where is it in the indictment or where is the proof that he did. You had provided none in your post and none was in the indictment.If you’re looking for a statement in the indictment that says “Cheney received a report from the CIA that said…” it’s not there. You have to look a little deeper. Which is, what i believe, i did.
And I don’t believe you did. You make an assumption that has other valid and more believable alternatives.
2) “Why didn’t he request the report.” I believe his Chief of Staff did. You think it’s more believable that he knew about it and hid it from his Chief of Staff who on his own requested the information than the belief that he requested his Chief of Staff to ‘go look into that report’?i believe differently. i believe the Cheney knew in 2002 that the State Department debunked it. i never said he hid anything. He’s the VP, he doesn’t have to hide anything. You’re asserting that Libby hid the info; it’s more plausible that Libby was in the dark in 2003 than Cheney.
No, you asserted that Cheney knew about the Wilson report to the CIA prior to Libby requesting it. from what I’ve read, Wilson reported to the CIA, the CIA then sent a report, not mentioning the Wilson trip specifically, to the VP’s office that used the information to support that Iraq contacted Niger about obtaining uranium. I get this information from the 9/11 commission and the Butler report. If you are going to go against their research I’m afraid you are going to have to do better than this.
And you believe that he knew from the State Department but give no reason why you believe that. Can you provide that line of reasoning?
The State Department never ‘debunked’ the story. They stated that they didn’t believe it to be true based on their understanding of the situation involved. The CIA however, at the time, did believe it. But not believing something and debunking are two different things, as are believing someone knew something and showing to a critical mind that they did. I don’t need hard proof, just something more believable that what you have presented since it goes against Occam’s Razor in my mind atm.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 05:21 PMRhinehold, you do yourself a disservice by clinging to the belief that Wilson’s report was wrong.
I’ve made no opinion on whether Wilson’s report was wrong. I’ve stated what has been researched by the 9/11 commission and the Butler report that the CIA believed the report, verbally given, actually supported the sixteen words, that Iraq did contact Niger about purchasing nuclear materials. In fact, no one I know has disputed that Iraq contacted Niger, only that Niger had misunderstood the intent of the contact. Wilson disagrees and says that what he told the CIA was something different, but since it wasn’t hard-documented it’s hard to say what he said at the time so it makes the analysis of whether his report was right or wrong hard.
Additionally, I’m still waiting for you to back up your claim that “The fact is that Joe Wilson outed his wife days after the State of the Union speech on national TV.” Please cite a source.
I apologize for ‘keeping you waiting’, I don’t recall you making that request. I had heard that he had done so on Meet The Press, but it was not in a written form but rather a radio program, mentioned by Victoria Toensing. Yes, I know that doesn’t make it true. However, an interesting theory is presented by Clifford D. May http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp
I’ll keep looking into the allegation I heard and see if there is anything to it or not, I don’t think that anyone yet, even in the indictment, has made it clear where Novak got his information from. What I’ve read says that Rove was asked if it were true and that he responded that he had heard the same thing. But from whom did Novak first hear this from and cause him to report it? Nothing suggests it was Libby and this is probably where the continuing investigation into Rove is dealing with.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 05:51 PMTony,
In the transcript this is what he said:
“No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson.”
“I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him.”
I think there is a difference between not knowing somoene and not knowing ‘of’ them… Maybe I’m picking nits…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 06:16 PMI’ve made no opinion on whether Wilson’s report was wrong. I’ve stated what has been researched by the 9/11 commission and the Butler report that the CIA believed the report, verbally given, actually supported the sixteen words, that Iraq did contact Niger about purchasing nuclear materials.
That’s actually true. But as we know, the CIA was being pressured by the office of the VP - Cheney and Libby - to fit any round intelligence into the square hole of war justification. Those reports also indicate that the State Department (who were most often correct in these areas and also most often ignored by the myopic administration) took the report for what it was - a debunking of the yellow cake story.
In fact, no one I know has disputed that Iraq contacted Niger, only that Niger had misunderstood the intent of the contact. Wilson disagrees and says that what he told the CIA was something different, but since it wasn’t hard-documented it’s hard to say what he said at the time so it makes the analysis of whether his report was right or wrong hard.
Yes. Niger reported that Iraq had contacted them in order to discuss “further trade” between the two countries. And that was the basis for the CIA to assume that “trade” meant yellow cake. No wonder the CIA is such a friggin mess.
I apologize for ‘keeping you waiting’, I don’t recall you making that request. I had heard that he had done so on Meet The Press, but it was not in a written form but rather a radio program, mentioned by Victoria Toensing. Yes, I know that doesn’t make it true.
Boy, you sure got that right. You don’t think the blogs on the right would have a transcript or even a video link to a Meet the Press clip “days after the state of the union” where Wilson “outs” his wife? Good luck, finding that my friend.
However, an interesting theory is presented by Clifford D. May “>http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp
I’ve read that before, and that theory is extremely lame. Corn obviously infers information from Novak’s column. Not the mark of a good reporter, but very common in an opinion piece.
I’ll keep looking into the allegation I heard and see if there is anything to it or not, I don’t think that anyone yet, even in the indictment, has made it clear where Novak got his information from. What I’ve read says that Rove was asked if it were true and that he responded that he had heard the same thing. But from whom did Novak first hear this from and cause him to report it? Nothing suggests it was Libby and this is probably where the continuing investigation into Rove is dealing with.
Yeah, Libby claimed that he heard about Plame from reporters too, not vice versa. How’d that line of logic work out for him?
Posted by: Burt at October 28, 2005 06:16 PMRhienhold,
Way to leave out the damning quotes. Here’s one from the same transcript:
CHENEY: like I say, I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came…MR. RUSSERT: The CIA did.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don’t know.
So, 5 months after actively starting a campaign to discredit Wilson by spreading around the information that his wife in the CIA sent him on the trip, Cheney is saying that he doesn’t know anything about how the trip came about. Priceless.
Posted by: Burt at October 28, 2005 06:21 PMDoes it matter that they all lied? That they diliberately outed Valerie Plame? That we went to war on lies (like Ronald Reagan’s War on Grenada after he collapsed the savings and loans by deregulating the Federal Banking system)?
They’ve already raped the treasury. They’ve already outsourced all our jobs and destroyed the middle class, and they’ll probably destroy social security before they’re through. The rich have gotten richer, the poor and middle class have gotten poorer and lost there health care and pension benefits as well.
No one is going to serve any real time as the last official act of George W. Bush will be to pardon every one of them. It is a shallow victory for us. It will take the democrats 20 years just to restore the US and recover from the damage this administration has done.
Posted by: Pat at October 28, 2005 06:22 PMI admittedly dont know much about the finer points of criminal law, but considering the nature of the nondisclosure Libby signed
(“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”) and the definitions of treason (“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or, in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”), could this situation escalation to a treason count if enough evidence is brought forth? Would W actually pardon a traitor?
CHENEY LIED TO US.
Of coarse he did, he’s a politician. Show me a politician that don’t lie to us.
I cann’t get the link for the indictment to come up on my computer, so I couldn’t read it. It seem that this crazy thing won’t down load links for some reason. Is the a website I can go to and get it?
Now that Libby has been indicted, he’s entiled like anyone else to be conciderd innocent until/unless proven guilty. I know that’s not going to be possible with a whole heap of folks (on both sides) on this blog. But intill there’s a trial I’ll do the same thing I did with Clinton. Wait until there’s a verdict.
However I don’t believe that Fitzgerald would have indicted unless he feels he can get a conviction.
That’s actually true. But as we know, the CIA was being pressured by the office of the VP - Cheney and Libby - to fit any round intelligence into the square hole of war justification.
Cite? Heresay? Where is the proof that the office of the VP was pressuring the CIA to give reports that say X in order to fit it around their views? Or, is it, as I suspect, your assumption?
Those reports also indicate that the State Department (who were most often correct in these areas and also most often ignored by the myopic administration) took the report for what it was - a debunking of the yellow cake story.
Interesting, when did the State Department get the transcript of the Wilson report, given verbally to the CIA?
Yes. Niger reported that Iraq had contacted them in order to discuss “further trade” between the two countries. And that was the basis for the CIA to assume that “trade” meant yellow cake. No wonder the CIA is such a friggin mess.
No, according to the CIA, British Intelligence and NIGER said it was the reason that they understood for it to be. Here, let me help since you are avoiding the factcheck.org story it appears…:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.and
But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well — evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger’s former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki “interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.” In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that “for most analysts” Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
Now, Joe Wilson says publically that this is not what he reported, that “At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.”
So, the CIA report to the VP stated something different than what Wilson says he stated to them. Of course, there are a number of reasons why. I think that the statement “intelligence from several different sources” might be a key here, unless Wilson thinks he’s the only operative that the CIA used… And Niger wasn’t the only place that the CIA believed Iraq was trying to negotiate nuclear materials from, the report says ‘Africa’…
Yeah, Libby claimed that he heard about Plame from reporters too, not vice versa. How’d that line of logic work out for him?
Odd, I work under the assumption that he is telling the truth until I’m proven otherwise. Because Libby lied that means that Rove did? If Fitzgerald finds that he did lie, I’m sure we’ll know about it soon enough, until then I’m going to go off of the thought that he didn’t. I hope you’re ok with that?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 06:44 PMSo, 5 months after actively starting a campaign to discredit Wilson by spreading around the information that his wife in the CIA sent him on the trip, Cheney is saying that he doesn’t know anything about how the trip came about.
You missed the point what I said. Who ‘hired’ Wilson? I don’t think his wife hired him and no one said that she did. She ‘recommended’ him.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 06:47 PMRhinehold:
“Odd, I work under the assumption that he is telling the truth until I’m proven otherwise.”
God’s Teeth, Rhinehold! Exactly how much kool-aid have you been drinking today? You’re like a walking Talking Point of the GOP!
Libby is LYING BASTARD. He didn’t rate 30 years of jail time for obstruction (one count), perjury (two counts) and false statements (two counts) unless it’s been made pretty damn clear that he deserves it.
(Not that the traitor will ever be made to serve any time at all.)
“Because Libby lied that means that Rove did? If Fitzgerald finds that he did lie, I’m sure we’ll know about it soon enough, until then I’m going to go off of the thought that he didn’t.”
Well, watch for it honey, because there is surely more to come:
Fitzgerald expands probe, believes he can get Rove on more serious charges, lawyers say
“I hope you’re ok with that?”
Of course we’re not okay that as usual it’s all “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” with you guys! [Sigh] Yet, it’s not as though we’re not wearily and sickeningly used to it…
Addressed to anybody on Left who feels like making a comment:
How’d you like Bush’s comments today?
Specifically when he said: “we’re all saddened by today’s news”?
All I could think when he said that was:
“Who’s “we”, Paleface?”
Saddened? When justice is served to someone who deserves an indictment because they’re a bunch of liars who are trying desperately to cover up their actions about leading the country into war for no good reason?
I don’t know about you, but what I’m saddened by is THEM. Because the real bloody tragedy is having a bunch of total f*cking numbskulls and traitors in charge of our country and our national security.
And it’s got nothing to do with what happened “today”, but with what happened three years ago before we lost two thousand brave Ameican soldiers and an enormous fortune in American taxpayer dollars. And afterward, when they thought nothing of being traitors to our undercover operatives and basically f*cking up any kind of trust we ever had with people in intelligence all over the world — just at the exact moment when we needed their trust more than we’ve ever needed it before.
In the indictment of Libby, Fitzgerald just says that the CIA sent Wilson on their own—it doesn’t go into the specifics about who in the CIA that might have been. And this is just one of the many frustrating aspects of this whole case.
Enormous resources were given to the special prosecuter to find facts on a subject of great interest to us but he’s not permitted to discuss any of his findings except as they relate to clearly indictable crimes. All of this time, money and attention has been given to gathering information, and now all of that information is under lock and key. It makes me wonder if a special prosecuter was the best way to go about this. I for one, would like to know what actually happened.
Anyone holding out hopes for further indictments or revelations is deluding themselves—this thing is over except for the shouting. The only way that could realisticaly change is if Libby decideded to cast blame on someone else and work out some kind of deal, an extremely far-fetched notion considering that he’s facing far lesser charges than he could have been and has only to string his case out until after the 2008 elections before he’s pardoned. Fitzmas has been a massive fizzle.
Posted by: sanger at October 28, 2005 08:05 PMPuh-leez! No law was broken in the 1st place. If Wilson’s wife’s CIA job was so top secret why did she appear on the cover of Vanity Fair? I suppose to give the would be assassins and foreign agents a better idea of what she looked like in case they wanted to knock her off…I love the way the press is all over this. Meanwhile, back in Little Rock two women who claimed to be raped by a former president were protesting at his library. No press coverage there. . Of course, that’s just about sex, isn’t it? I can’t wait until Hilary announces her candidacy for President. The special prosecutors will be revving their engines for sure.
Posted by: RickW at October 28, 2005 08:10 PMRhinehold:
“Odd, I work under the assumption that he is telling the truth until I’m proven otherwise.”
God’s Teeth, Rhinehold! Exactly how much kool-aid have you been drinking today? You’re like a walking Talking Point of the GOP! Libby is LYING BASTARD. He didn’t rate 30 years of jail time for obstruction (one count), perjury (two counts) and false statements (two counts) unless it’s been made pretty damn clear that he deserves it. (Not that the traitor will ever be made to serve any time at all.)
Err, I support the indictment… Are you even reading what I write?
Well, watch for it honey, because there is surely more to come: Fitzgerald expands probe, believes he can get Rove on more serious charges, lawyers say
And those same reports said that Cheney would be indicted and Rove and…
Again, like I did with Libby, when Rove is fully investigated and indicted *THEN* I’ll say he lied and that’s why, etc.
Forgive me for waiting until I know some *FACTS* before I make a decision like that, especially regarding leaking classified information to reporters. If and when it happens, just like I did with Libby, I’ll support it fully. Until then keep the assumptions and theories to what they are.
Of course we’re not okay that as usual it’s all “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” with you guys! [Sigh] Yet, it’s not as though we’re not wearily and sickeningly used to it…
Again, not sure where you pulling this from, after reading the indictment I think Libby should be put in jail and not pardoned. And I will scream and cuss if Bush considers doing it (which I am not assuming, like OTHERS that he will, just because Clinton would have (and did)). I also don’t appreciate it the sentiment you’ve expressed towards me.
But, as you say, it’s not as if I’m not wearily and sickeningly use to it…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 08:13 PMRhinehold:
“Err, I support the indictment… Are you even reading what I write?”
Yeah, but I still see you splitting every hair in sight, when it seems more than a little ridiculous to do so. Are you really thinking that a guy like Fitzgerald would bring so many counts after two years of investigation without solid reason?
“And those same reports said that Cheney would be indicted and Rove and…”
??? My link said nothing of the kind.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2005 08:30 PMAdrienne, I’ve been following the Raw Story reports by Jason Leopold for some time now, and these sources he keeps citing have been so ludicrously wrong about so many things that I’m shocked he’s not embarrased to keep writing about this. Or maybe I’m not surprised. This is the same Jason Leopold who was fired from Slate Magazine for his faulty reporting about Enron, and whose last book was pulled by his publisher because it was found to be so shoddily researched.
Two days ago, Leopold was saying that several White House officials, including David Wurmser and John Hannah and Karl Rove were being indicted and that Rove had been offered a deal which he refused. Now, is any of that true? Um, no.
And now these same sources of his are saying that Fitzerald wants to exapand his probe to get Rove on bigger charges? Uh, but wasn’t he already indicted according to them? Leopold is full of it.
Posted by: sanger at October 28, 2005 08:34 PMsanger,
We now know that Rove is “Official A”, so I guess we’ll have to wait and see, won’t we?
“We’re not quite done,” Fitzgerald said in an hour-long news conference this afternoon. But he refused to comment on whether anyone beside Libby would be charged in the case
Rhinehold: “Err, I support the indictment… Are you even reading what I write?”Yeah, but I still see you splitting every hair in sight, when it seems more than a little ridiculous to do so. Are you really thinking that a guy like Fitzgerald would bring so many counts after two years of investigation without solid reason?
Um, no, I don’t. That’s why I support the indictment and hope that Libby goes to jail to rot. What he did was inexcusable and I’m glad that Fitzgerald was able to find the information. And if it holds up and Bush attempts to pardon him to save him jail time I think that would be criminal as well.
What hairs am I splitting? Because I am not willing to say that Rove is guilty of the same thing without seeing any facts supporting it yet? Please, tell me as you would a child, since that is what you seem to think I am, what hairs am I splitting?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 08:48 PMI thought it was pretty obvious when reading Libby’s indictment that “Official A” is Karl Rove.
But it was Fitzgerald’s choice to designate him as such. It’s not as if Fitzgerald doesn’t know who it is and will be amazed to learn that the mysterious Mister A written about in his own report is in fact Karl Rove!
It wouldn’t surprise me, though, considering the shoddy journalism related to this story if the media ends up trumpeting the unmasking of “Official A” as some startling new revelation.
In any case, the the actions of “Official A” described in the indictment don’t conradict in any way what we already know. According to Novak, his first source was “no partisan gunslinger,” and Rove was a second source. When Novak asked about Wilson, Rove said “I heard that too.” If Fitzgerald wanted-or was able—to indict on these grounds, he would have done so already.
Posted by: sanger at October 28, 2005 09:09 PMIf Scooter lied to a grand jury he should go to jail,just like Bill Clinton should have. What is the meaning of is?
Posted by: Xlib at October 28, 2005 10:07 PMBad thing to commit perjury. If proven, I expect Libby will be punished. Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty. After two years of investigation, that is all that came down the pike. Everything else you are all writing about is mere speculation and innuendo.
Libby made some false statements. When the indictment came down, he resigned.
No conspiracy charge. No charge of the underlying crime of outing a CIA agent. For all the talk, it is a pretty long run for a pretty short slide. Have fun with that.
I liked Clinton. I didn’t think he should have been hounded like that. Many of my friends didn’t agree. They were livid when he seemed to slip out from under what they thought was a sure thing. That’s how you guys will be feeling soon. Have fun with that too.
Rhinegold, I’ve read the indictment of Libby several times, and while I agree that there’s sufficient grounds to bring a case against Libby, I also see that there’s plenty of room there to mount a strong defense and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he beats the charges. It’s a little early to be calling for anybody to rot in jail here, and the case will at the very minimum be ambiguous enough that Bush will be able to justify a pardon—something, incidentally, I’m 100% sure will occur.
In the specific intances where Fitzgerald accuses Libby of lying, he underlines the passages which he says are lies. Many of these instances, however, appear to be Libby essentially admitting how he lied to reporters in an attempt NOT to divulge potentially classifed information. Lies? Yes. But it’s not clear at all that these are lies directed at the grand jury (illegal) or lies directed at reporters (not illegal). I actually saw several quotes from Libby that looked like better examples of potential lies, and I’m fairly shocked that Fitzgerald has chosen to base his case on somewhat shakier grounds.
But the quotes Fitzgerald uses are based on an assumption which may prove very difficult to prove in a court of law—that the assertions of the reporters Libby spoke with are factual and authorative while all of Libby’s assertions are deliberate falsehoods.
In at least one count, Libby appears to be charged because his story differs from Tim Russert’s! It will be interesting to see why Fitzgerald believes that Libby intstead of Russert should be indicted here, if someone MUST be indicted when two sides of a story don’t agree.
There is also the matter of documents in Fitzgerald’s possession which show that Libby did or could have known about Plame BEFORE he ever spoke with reporters—the most potentially damning evidence, I think. Especially if Libby were accused of “outing Valerie Plame,” which he is NOT! Anyhow, the relevance of these documents as they pertain to perjury charges depends on two things:
1) Whether Libby or others have the most accurate memory of conversations for which there is no actual and authorative record to disprove Libby’s account.
2) Whether Libby was “sure” that the information in those documents was correct. This is important because Fitzgerald accuses Libby of perjury for saying he “didn’t and still doesn’t know” if the documents were correct about Wilson/Plame and so didn’t want to confirm as much to reporters.
Parodoxically, Fitzgerald will need to demonstrate that Libby knew things to be factual that he never talked about!
Anyhow, Libby’s trial is sure to be an interesting sideshow over the next couple of years. Tim Russert, Matt Cooper are going to be hauled into court and have their names dragged through the mud by Libby’s attorneys. It all promises to be a giant and very entertaining three ring circus.
Libby may very well be convicted in the end—I’d give it a 50/50 chance.
Just to brag for a moment, I’ve been following the case for a long time and have said since July that I thought it would all come down on Libby in the end. Should have bought lottery tickets instead!
Posted by: sanger at October 28, 2005 10:14 PMHere is a remarkable piece of trivia. It says something, I think, about how history comes full circle.
It turns out that Scooter Libby was Marc Rich’s attorney and defended Clinton’s controversial pardon of Rich in 2001.
Posted by: sanger at October 28, 2005 11:29 PMRon Brown:
You need to have Adobe Acrobat (or the “reader” version)
installed on your computer to see the link.
You can right click on the link in the article and select “save target as”, then download it to your computer and read it with adobe acrobat reader if you can’t do it just by clicking on the link. You have to have the acrobat reader plug-in installed in your browser (which is usually automatic when you install acrobat).
Either way, that’s how you can get it.
Time for the Sicilian Eagle to throw his two cents into the fray.
First,I have always been a proponent of sunlight being the best disenfectant(Brandeis),and I think that all of America need to see and hear the goings on that led up to the invasion of Iraq.
I say this as a Republician.
I think the prosecutor is a square shooter and let’s let the chips fall where they may.
Rove won’t be indicted..the Grand Jury was dismissed and a new Grand Jury would have to be impaneled,but he should do the right thing and resign.
The shadow then disapears.
Bush should then use this opportunity to bury his critics once and for all.
In a step by step way,he should prove that it would have been criminally neglegent for him not to have acted in the way he did.
He should take the offensive now,immediately.
This guy Joe Wilson is a scum bag and once the shit hits the fan on his background the smell is going to lead up a prominent Democratic arse.
Let’s boogy.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 28, 2005 11:46 PMRhinehold-
It’s good that you’re not in a state of denial about the indictments like some are. I think, though, you need to be willing to workout some of the logical implications of what was said and done, and let that soak in for a while.
Keep in mind the people making the report about the Sixteen Words were mostly Republicans who were facing the potential of hamstringing their own candidate- in short, they had a conflict of interest with fairly judging the material.
The Sixteen Words, by themselves, can be parsed into thruthful territory, but the thing is, Bush wasn’t alleging the desire to get Yellowcake, but was trumpeting a case which stated that the very means of utilizing that to make a bomb might very well be in Saddam’s hands.
It’s important that this letter, this evidence stated that a deal had been reached. This was the implication: Under our noses, Saddam is building a bomb? Do you want to wait? Do you want to see a city blasted into the dust, not just a set of buildings collapsing? Add to that all kinds of hints and allegations that al-Qaeda terrorists were to be found there, and you got a case that is scary as hell.
This is where Joe Wilson comes in. Almost a full year before our president goes before the American people, he finds out that source is bogus. All he finds are wink-wink nudge-nudge attempts by the Iraqis to discuss getting the Uranium. This is what’s trumpeted as Bush’s vindication: An indication that Iraq’s still interested, sandwiched in the midst of more proof that a document was forged, and additional proof that the transaction described in the document was nearly impossible.
Is that the best defenders of this administration can hope for in vindication, one step forward and two steps back?
The very indictment says that Libby was told of Plame by four sources, one CIA, one State, one other fellow, and Cheney himself, before it became public knowledge. Valerie Wilson’s workplace was known to Rove and Libby to be in the Directorate of Operations, indicating she might have been in a sensitive position.
Right now, the very meat of the indictments against Libby is that he testified that he had gotten the information from reporters, instead of being told by a four sources, which include the VP himself, and very likely Karl Rove himself. Those are the facts as established in the indictment, which you support.
So why believe what he says without corroboration? A little doubt of a proven liar is not an unhealthy or unfair thing.
If you are as independent as you say, then follow the trail of evidence and allow yourself to consider the implications.
Sanger-
My money is on this: With the short time between when Judith Miller finally spoke up, and when this Grand Jury had to end, Libby’s indictment was all he had time for. He couldn’t get an extension on this one.
He’s getting another one. With as deliberate a fellow as Fitzgerald is, I doubt he would frivolously empanel a new grand jury. I say wait a few weeks, and we will see more news coming from Fitzgerald.
RickW-
Apparently, the prosecutor thinks it’s important enough, and valid enough to prosecute somebody for lying about it.
As for those two women?
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Two women who once accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct toured his presidential library Wednesday on a trip paid for by the publisher of a book critical of Clinton and his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broddrick criticized what they called a campaign of intimidation meant to silence them after they came forward with their allegations.
They weren’t protesting. They were visiting. On a tour paid for by the publisher of their new book.
Did your source happen to provide you with these letters?
This one dropped my jaw when I saw it:
Letter of November 11, 1994
Dear Mr. President –
You have been on my mind so often this week – There are so very many people who believe in you and what you are trying to do for our country –
Take heart in knowing that your number one fan thanks you every day for your help in saving her wonderful state.
With appreciationKathleen
She invited him to attend her engagement party.
Who knows. All she said could be true. But what do all those letters mean, then?
Juanita Broaddrick may be telling the truth, but until 1997, she maintained that she had not been assaulted, even signing an affidavit in the Paula Jones case to the opposite.
According to Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, many journalists were skeptical; “This is a story that’s been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the [Wall Street] Journal today…. Everyone’s taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone’s knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn’t credible.”Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2005 12:36 AM
The Republicans here need to ask themselves and their people how far this goes. People will quickly get tired of hearing more about how the things that are going on now are the worst things that are going to happen.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2005 01:28 AMRhinehold,
You said “I have to apologize, you’re going to have to spell this one out for me I’m afraid, I don’t read Daily KOS on a daily basis.” So while I am not a lawyer, I do believe that Fitzgerald said that they indictments were brought against Mr. Libby because he is obstructing a federal grand jury investigation into a breach of national security. This charge was brought by Mr. Libby giving two false statements and perjuring himself twice. Although capable of proving Mr. Libby was the first government official that exposed the CIA Agent, the larger questions of motive and conspiracy can not be answered in a grand jury setting (I.e. seeking the truth). Now, Americans need to take a deep breath and watch to see if the rule of law applies equally as well to our politics and the two parties that represent “We the People.â€
Was Mr. Libby acting in the National Interest or the interest of his own political party in office? Was he acting under his own freewill and alone? Did VP Cheney or others have a say in what Mr. Libby said to the reporters as stated in the indictment? All real good questions, but will now have to go to trail to be answered. A battle that both sides really don’t want to see, yet probably should. Because our politics and the games played by those elected and working for “We the People†can never operate above the laws that we live by.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 29, 2005 05:20 AMFrom Wikipedia:
Wilson served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and PrÃncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. He was hailed as “truly inspiring” and “courageous” by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein’s threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003).
This guy is a scumbag? Really?
Posted by: MyPetGoat at October 29, 2005 07:08 AMMyPetGoat
Let’s see where this takes us as I said.
In politics there are more than two sides of a coin..three or four sometimes.
Rest assured that as I type these words every rock about and by this guy ,his life and this incident will be analyzed by conservative thinkers.
I think that the end result will be a re-invigorated party too.
My view,as a Republician,is that I want the truth.
I jave always been a proponent of the “hope for the best,prepare for the worst” school of thought,and I tried to imagine sitting as the president and what I would do if Egyptian intelligence,Isreali Mossad,Scotland Yard,Russian Intelligence,Jordanian intelligence all said that Sadam had WMD.
As I said,it would be criminally negligent not to act based on the above in light of 9/11.
Plus,we know that Sadam did have WMD prior to the Iranian war becaue we sold them to him…we have the receipt,so to speak.
Knowing that and throwing in the Iraq,being as big as the state of California,and that Sadam tightly orchestrated the when and why of UN visits,even kicking them out,then it is not a stretch that he would have hidden them someplace in the vast Anbar province somewhere or north of Bagdad.
I also know that usually I don’t remember the exact details that I had with anyone two weeks ago,let alone two years ago.
Times dims exact conversations.
But,politics are politics.
Seems to me this is a great issue for the left heading into next’s year’s mid-term election.
Seems to me that it’s a good issue for the right too.
Mind as well get it out now.
Again time is on the right’s side.They have until 2007 to catch OBL,get the security forces up to par,and kill off the insurgents now.
By then this issue will be a distant memory.
In the meantime,we can kick it around a bit.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 29, 2005 07:50 AMWhat I (and many like minded people) have a problem with is the whole excuse for taking our country to war in Iraq.
One thing to remember is that it was Bush, not Saddam, that kicked out the weapons inspectors who were doing their best to do their jobs. Yes, they were being jerked around by Saddam, but they were there on the ground.
Wanna catch those responsible for 9/11? Well it looks like we’re going to have to take out the Taliban again. But the best we can hope for is that the recent earthquake took care of that for us.
—————————————————————
Bush smear MO:
Ann Richards: Lesbian
John McCain: Fathered illegitimate black children in South Carolina
John Kerry: French
Howard Dean: The terrorists need therapy
Joe Wilson: Democratic political hack
This Wilson affair fits right in with how the Bush Admin. operates.
The truly sad part of all this is that if Bush and his buddies were Republicans, we wouldn’t be involved in Iraq the way we are. The Taliban would have been wiped off the face of the earth. We would never have heard of Joe or Valerie Wilson. China wouldn’t own trillions of american dollars, and our borders would be secure.
If only………
No conspiracy charge. No charge of the underlying crime of outing a CIA agent. For all the talk, it is a pretty long run for a pretty short slide. Have fun with that.Posted by: Woody Mena at October 29, 2005 10:04 AMI liked Clinton. I didn’t think he should have been hounded like that. Many of my friends didn’t agree. They were livid when he seemed to slip out from under what they thought was a sure thing. That’s how you guys will be feeling soon. Have fun with that too.
Jack,
The there is so much spin here I don’t know where to begin.
You do an admirable job of playing it cool, but who are you kidding? The VP’s chief of staff is facing up to thirty years in prison. Fitzgerald is the first prosecutor in over a century to indict a sitting WH official. Unless he is complete boob, he wouldn’t do that without a darn strong case. Furthermore, it is pretty well established that is he is pursuing more charges.
It is true that all of the charges involved the “cover up”, but that’s usually what happens in Washington. Nixon wasn’t facing impeachment on burglary charges. Ditto with Clinton.
If I admired the Bush administration as much as you do, I would be pooping bricks about the prospect of Cheney, the bedrock of this administration, getting entangled in this. At the very least, we can expect him to testify or take the fifth. (“Have fun” watching.) Honestly, I am not exactly delighted myself about the prospect of him being drawn into this. Can’t say I like the guy, but he is one person in the WH who knows his you-know-what from his elbow.
oops. everything before “Jack,” is a quote. The rest is me.
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 29, 2005 10:06 AMWoody
Sometimes you can percieve a turning point, even when the particulars don’t seem that way. Sometimes it is a bottoming out. It happened when Bill Clinton was publicaly humiliated by the Congress. It was his low point, but I could tell at the time that the game was over for his oppenents. That was all they were going to get. This is where you are with the Bush Administration. There will be a lot of shouting, much sound and fury, but to coin the phrase of the previous administration, Bush will now get on with the people’s business.
I was a little worried on Wednesday. But then Meirs pulled out; the stock market rose, and the grand jury brought back a pretty mild result. I feel sorry for Libby, but that’s it.
Posted by: Jack at October 29, 2005 10:29 AMJack,
Bill Kristol made a similar argument in the Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/275xeums.asp.
You guys must be seeing something that I’m not seeing. The investigation goes on. There is ample possibility of more indictments and embarrassing revelations. I don’t expect Bush to be impeached or anything, but there is going to be a cloud over his presidency, as there was over Clinton’s.
I’m not exactly turning cartwheels over this —
we will still have the same president, and maybe the same Congress. But he is not going to be able to do anything substantive with the remainder of his term. He has no moral authority left.
Woody
You are right about the Clinton analogy. And what happened in that case?
I am sorry that the Bush agenda won’t move forward, but I have already written much off. SS will not be reformed and we will pay more as a result. But that is finished. The ownership society may have to wait, but that also was already on hold. So what does happen? Bush appoints one or maybe two Supreme Court justices. The economy continues to improve. You guys put the blame for any problems on Bush - personally, so the next Republican candidate can easily get out from under. It is not my best scenario, but I would still rather be where I am than where the Dems are.
Posted by: Jack at October 29, 2005 12:31 PMWoody,
YOu say that the investigation goes on and there is ample possibility of more indictments. Where do you see that? Fitzgerald himself stated that the investigation was substantially over. Yes it will continue until trial as all investigations do but nothing he said indicated the likelyhood of additional indictments. It looks to me that Libby will be the only one from this investigations
Mike P
Posted by: Mike P at October 29, 2005 12:35 PMYou are right about the Clinton analogy. And what happened in that case?
Well, since you asked, I believe Mr. Clinton was impeached. Then, even though the economy was booming, Bush became President. And the GOP controlled the House and Senate. If this is the right analogy, I like it.
Thanks for cheering me up so much. Hope you and Bill Kristol have plenty of scotch around. ;)
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 29, 2005 12:38 PMWoody,
Bush won simly because no one wanted Gore in charge of anything. If Clinton had been able to run again he would have won, the polls were very clear about that one at the time.
2008 is going to be interesting since we know that Cheney will not be running. Who will the dems put up, who will the repubs nominate. Who will the green and libertarians offer and will they be shut out of the process again as they have been over the past 20 years?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 29, 2005 12:43 PMRhienhold,
Interesting, when did the State Department get the transcript of the Wilson report, given verbally to the CIA?
Directly from the Senate Intelligence Report:
“For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.”
When I have more time, I’ll comment more. I wonder if Sicilian Eagle will be man enough to back up his statement that Joe Wilson is a “scumbag” by the time I get back.
Mike P,
Although I can not speak for Woody, Mr. Fitzgerald is not done with his mandate of finding out who and why Mrs. Wilson was outed. While most of the evidence has been found, Mr. Libby’s trail or more likely “Plea Bargining” and telling on what really happened may or may not put the entire “Iraq Team” of the VP in jail.
Because unlike President Clinton using the word “sexaul relationship” to split legal hairs that even Congress would not address, Mr. Libby’s testamony and others can bring down the White House. Simply put, if he pleas or is found guilty of obstruction than why did he obstruct justice? Who else was involved in his discussions to out Mrs. Wilson? Was his actions politically motivated or was he following orders of his supervisors? To put it into Fitzgerald terms of baseball, why did Mr. Libby throw sand in the umpire’s eyes? Answer that question and more charges may follow.
Considering we are talking about national security, the Republicans in the Halls of Congress have a real problem on their hands. By allowing this issue to fade away, they show that they do not care about national security and protecting our CIA Agents. Go ahead with a full Congessional hearing and risk taking out many of their Republican Friends in the White House. Now, politically speaking I do believe that the Republican Leadership is finding itself between a rock and a hard place with their very moral values at risk.
For calling out Clinton’s affiar over a BJ as a national disgrace, how can they rightfully say that commiting a felony on a national security matter for political gain is some how less of a disgrace for the White House? Oh, what a tangled web is being made as the next few months will clearly establish the 2006-08 elections. Does the Republicans eat their own in order to save face or do they use their power to cover up what is clearly their political party over stepping the boundary’s of law (willfully or not) to make a political point? Neither can make those up for reeletion happy considering the facts of this case.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 29, 2005 02:07 PMAll:
This piece is in today’s Wall Street Journal and presents a completely different viewpoint.
Let’s bat this around a bit as it says it all.
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn’t committed.
Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White House’s senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff—not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire “scandal,” but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used.
Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a criminal investigation into a “national security matter” of this sort hinged on “very fine distinctions,” and that any attempt to obscure exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.
Let us stipulate that impeding a criminal investigation is indeed a serious matter; no one should feel he can lie to a grand jury or to federal investigators. But there is a question to be asked about the end to which the accused allegedly lied. The indictment itself contains no motive. And Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003 column, in which Valerie Plame’s employment with the CIA was revealed.
Rather, according to the indictment, Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson’s wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak’s column had run. What’s more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn’t tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.
If this is a conspiracy to silence Administration critics, it was more daft than deft. The indictment itself contains no evidence of a conspiracy, and Mr. Libby has not been accused of trying to cover up some high crime or misdemeanor by the Bush Administration. The indictment amounts to an allegation that one official lied about what he knew about an underlying “crime” that wasn’t committed. And we still don’t know who did tell Mr. Novak—presumably, it was the soon-to-be-infamous “Official A” from paragraph 21 of the indictment, although we don’t know whether Official A was Mr. Novak’s primary source or merely a corroborating one.
To the extent that the facts alleged in the indictment can be relied upon, the story goes something like this. Sometime in May 2003, or slightly before, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, was informed of Joe Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake there. Mr. Kristof wrote a column, and Mr. Libby began to ask around, to determine why a Democratic partisan had been sent on such a sensitive mission in the run-up to the Iraq war. He allegedly learned in the course of his inquiries that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that Mr. Libby informed Judith Miller of the New York Times about Mr. Wilson’s wife in June, but she never wrote it up. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson went public with his own account of his mission and its outcome, without reference to his wife’s employment or possible involvement in his trip.
Mr. Libby also spoke to Mr. Cooper of Time about it, who did write it up, but only after Mr. Novak’s column had run. In this same time period, he had a conversation with Mr. Russert, which may or may not have covered Mr. Wilson and his wife, depending on whom you believe.
So, we are left with this. Did Mr. Libby offer the truth about Mr. Wilson to Mr. Cooper “without qualifications,” as Mr. Fitzgerald alleges, or did he merely confirm what Mr. Cooper had heard elsewhere? Did he, or did he not, discuss Mr. Wilson with Tim Russert at all?
On this much we can agree with Mr. Fitzgerald: These are “very fine distinctions” indeed, especially as they pertain to discussions that occurred two years ago, and whose importance only became clear well after the fact, when investigators came knocking. In a statement yesterday, Mr. Libby’s counsel zeroed in on this point when he said, “We are quite distressed the Special Counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby’s recollection and those of others’ and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements.” He added that they “will defend vigorously against these charges.”
On the answers to these questions hang a possible 30-year jail term and $1.25 million in fines for a Bush Administration official who was merely attempting to expose the truth about Mr. Wilson, a critic of the Administration who was lying to the press about the nature of his involvement in the Niger mission and about the nature of the intelligence that it produced. In other words, Mr. Libby was defending Administration policy against political attack, not committing a crime.
Mr. Fitzgerald has been dogged in pursuing his investigation, and he gave every appearance of being a reasonable and tough prosecutor in laying out the charges yesterday. But he has thrust himself into what was, at bottom, a policy dispute between an elected Administration and critics of the President’s approach to the war on terror, who included parts of the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and CIA. Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.
Cole,
Thanks, I’ll give it a try and see what happens.
When they wrote Computers for Dummies the should have wrote a companion Computers for Dummer Dummies that way I might be able to understand these crazy gadgets.
The 30 year jail term and $1.25 million dollar fines are maximums that will never happen under the sentencing guidlelines—even if Libby is convicted on all five counts, which remains to be seen.
Martha Stewart could have gotten a maximum of 20 years and ended up serving six months. On the news yesterday, a U.S Prosecutor in DC said that even if convicted, Libby would easily be able to negotiate a sentence without any jail time whatsoever for these charges.
Libby will fight, but he’s never going to start striking deals which implicate higher-ups for serious crimes when he’s probably not even facing jail time and only needs to drag this out until January of 09 at the latest to get his pardon.
What if Libby is, or think he is, taking a bullet here to protect other White House officials? Even under that scenario—actually, more than over under that scenario—he would keep his mouth shut
and not do anything to jeopradize his pardon.
sicilianeagle:
You are very funny. Curious that 3 Reporters directly dispute what Libby claims. Oh wait!!! I know!!! Its the Liberal Media Bias!!! Those 3 Reporters are simply part of the vast leftwing conspiracy to bring down the Bush Administration!!!
Wonder what you will say when its Rove’s turn?
Posted by: Aldous at October 29, 2005 02:43 PMMike P.,
It is being reported all over the MSM that Fitzgerald is still after Rove. I believe he did say “it’s not over”. Maybe he is finished with most of the investigation but not with the legal action. None of us know for sure. We shall see…
Sicilian Eagle,
WSJ is a good newspaper for news but their editorial page is full of distortions. I know because I read it regularly. Their complaints sound pretty lame. Two years isn’t very long investigation. I don’t think anyone is guilty of criminalizing politics. A policy dispute led to (alleged) criminal behavior in the White House.
Rhinehold,
I don’t think that fact that Clinton was still fairly popular undermines my point. If Bush is unpopular in 2008 the GOP would seem to be in worse shape.
sanger:
You do realize that you just called your people immoral, unethical and complete utter scum, right?
btw… Martha Stewart was found guilty for lying in a stock sale that she was innocent of. I doubt the CIA will tolerate Libby walking away from outing their agents and endangering National Security.
Posted by: Aldous at October 29, 2005 02:51 PMSicilianeagle,
That would be nice if the WSJ did not leave out some important facts. We know through the grand jury that Mr. Libby was the first government officail to release Mrs. Wilon’s name to a non-government person. We know through the grand jury investigation that Mr. Libby discussed with others on how to handle Mr. Wilson. And most damming of all, we know that real damage was done to our national security interests. The latter is the one with teeth and Mr. Libby can not hide from it.
Was it political games that over stepped the line or is it a well thought out plan to take out a political opponent which has been a trademark of this administration? What gets me is that the conservatives do not want to admit that these charges brought by the grand jury are conservative as they stopped based on what they could prove and not wat they assumed happened. Do you really think Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove acted alone on this matter? Was it not politically motivated to out Mrs. Wilson? Real damage was done to our national security, the only question that needs to be answered in our courts is why and who was involved. Or does the Republican Party believe that politics in America should be above the law? Even if one’s actions put at risk the entire national security of America.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 29, 2005 02:59 PMHenry,
Why would Libby even think of plea bargaining? It is not likely he would get much time in jail if any and with a good possibility of receiving a pardon before Bush leaves office a plea bargain makes no sense. By the way it was Fitzgerald himself who said that the investigation was substantially over. If he was going to indict Rove or Cheney then he would have done it before the grand jury was excused.
The most interesting thing about this whole thing is how it makes both Democrats and Republicans change face when it comes to the issue of perjury. It is hard to defend Clinton and his perjury while trying to condemn Libby and his although I admit you tried mighty hard.
Posted by: Mike P at October 29, 2005 03:41 PMDo you really think this will go to trial? I hope it does, but I really doubt it with the crap Libby is in.
Posted by: mister fireplaces at October 29, 2005 03:58 PMMike P,
If and only if Mr. Liby goes to trail than the State (i.e. We the People) have the right to open doors that IMO should remain shut. Besides, Mr. Libby could be given full ammunity and forced to tell us what he knows. Just because this grand jury is over with their investigation, the case on the harm caused to our national security is still very much open. Now it hinges on what Mr. Libby will or will not say to keep out of jail for 30 years (i.e. the rest of his life).
As far as the Dems and Pubs go, I agree that both sides will have a problem over their moralities. However, comparing what President Clinton did (a sex act in the oval office) to Mr. Libby (alledged)obstructing an investgation into a national security issue is like comparing apples and oranges. One is a crime against nature at best while the other falls into the “Gap” of selling out the country for personal or professional gain. Not even close considering that we went to war over the details surrounding this case. What did President Clinton do that put our troops in harms way?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 29, 2005 04:02 PMWoody
Glad to make you happy.
But remember when the GOP took control. The Republicans gains started in 1994. The other important difference is that the Republicans did more than hate Clinton. They presented a vision that appealed to a lot of Americans. It was clearly articulated, whether you agreed or not. The Dems have not done that.
I sometimes am concerned that conservatives are not presenting enough new ideas. But the liberals are not producing anything new at all.
The only unifying thread for the Dems is to be against Bush. Demolition is usually easier than construction.
Henry,
Perjury and obstruction of justice are the same exact charges in both Clinton and Libby. You can argue about whether the underlying causes behind each are better or worse but the charges are exactly the same.
What you seem to forget is that if it does go to trial then nothing requires Libby to say a word. He can not be forced to tell what he knows since he can claim his rights under the 5th. Since Fitzgerald did not indict Rove or Cheney last week I doubt that any other indictments will come out of his investigation.
Posted by: Mike P at October 29, 2005 06:56 PMI would be happy to see a Republican party with some dignity, some grace, some decency. That’s the one I remember, before all the bullies and corporate cronies got a hold of it.
If we want to talk about investigations run amok, we can talk about worse than this. Much worse. An investigation into a land deal, done by a president while he was governor, which mutated into an investigation of whether the president perjured himself about an affair. Fact of the matter is, Libby has been indicted for lying about his role in the leak, which is not insubstantial. He talked to several reporters, according to the indictment. I won’t go into what my newest post has laid out more clearly, but the obvious fact is that Libby’s testimony flatly contradicts many facts more than he could have legitimately forgotten. this isn’t about inconsistencies, but flat out untruths that he had to have known weren’t the case. What’s more, it’s no defense, in terms of classified information, if he merely confirmed things his NDA prohibits even that.
The bloody shame of all this is that the Republican party has resorted to blurring the lines between right and wrong rather than flat out admit that politics isn’t everything and that sometimes you have to cut loose politicians who do wrong. Better to enter heaven maimed than fry in hell in one piece.
This business of talking about criminalizing politics is just a way of politicizing criminality: You see, we in the Republican party get to break laws because all we do, we do for your own good!
Fact of the matter is, there has to be a point at which politics is criminalized: when it breaks the law. There is a difference between the occasional dip into legal gray-areas and dark deeds, and the long term fall to the darkside. When a party, whether liberal or conservative, takes on that dark character, it deserves to lose power.
I think, Sanger, you should consider the damage it would do to have a second Gerald Ford Pardon. Nothing like a pardon to confirm one’s guilt.
Mike P-
He would think of it because the prosecutor really has him dead to rights. The memory defense does not work when a number of crucial events occur in sequence, and you actively have conversations on a topic with people. We’re not talking about forgetting in years, but mere days and weeks. These are events he should have some recollection of, if he’s a healthy individual He completely misrepresented the nature of his meetings with the Reporters, the multiple sources that told him Valerie was CIA, and the nature (hell, the existence) of his meetings with Judith Miller.
As for further indictments, I seem to recall plenty of Republicans saying there weren’t going to be any.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2005 09:25 PMStephen,
Of course there were Republicans saying there would be no indictments just as there were Democrats saying that Libby, Rove, Cheney, etc would be indicted. The problem with jumping the gun with assumptions before facts come out.
I think you are wrong about Libby and his defense. He is not required to take the stand in his own defense therefore he does not have to say anything in court if he goes to trial. And if he was assured that he would be pardoned then he has even less to worry.
Not saying that is the right way to go just that it seems the most logical to me.
Posted by: Mike P at October 29, 2005 11:35 PMI don’t like Bush the Second and I don’t trust him - never have - never will - just my gut instincts. Other people trust him - I think that they are stupid - but I suppose that it is just their gut instincts. I think that he is an incompetent commander and chief. He sat doing nothing for seven minutes while the United States was under attack. He outsourced the job of getting Osama at Torabora to Osama’s former comrades in arms against the Soviets. His administration refused to give the protections of the Geneva Convention to our enemies at Gitmo and then sent the General who ran Gitmo to Abu Ghireb to Gitmoize it. He is a failed leader and failed to prepare the American people to be committed to making the necessary sacrifices to win this war at all cost and as a result the American people are turning against the war. The list is just endless.
I opposed the Iraq war from the start but I always assumed that Saddam had WMD. I opposed the war because:
I thought that we could contain him just as we contained Stalin and the Soviets.
It did not make any sense that Saddam would assist Osama because Osama was more of a threat to him than to us. Osama was a religious fanatic. Ruthless dictators would love to be able to control a terrorist network, but religious fanatics are loose cannons. If Saddam gave WMD to Osama, Osama would probably use them against us but then deliberately leave footprints leading back to Saddam. Saddam wasn’t stupid. He wasn’t going to give Osama WMD… unless of course, the U.S. invaded Iraq and he was going down anyway. But I did think that Saddam had WMD. After all we literally gave him the Anthrax.
I also did not support the war in Iraq because I thought that Iraq might degenerate into civil war and it still looks like it might.
I also did not support the war in Iraq because I thought that it would be perceived as a crusade against Islam and would create even more terrorists.
I also did not support this war from the beginning because it appeared that the Bush Administration were manipulating the mass media and were beating the drums of war and hyping the case - that the Bush Administration was rushing to war against the objections of the U.N. and U.N. Weapons Inspectors. Now we know that is exactly what they were doing. For example, they leaked information - wrong information - to their lackey Judith Miller to be printed in the New York Times - and then went on talk shows and referred to that information as proof of the need to rush to war.
Now it appears quite likely that Scooter lied. IF SO, what was he really trying to hide? Legally speaking the outing of Wilson’s wife was not that bad - not even provable - just political hardball. In my mind that was morally equivalent to treason - but that is not provable either - just my opinion. So why the cover up? What is being covered? There is no proof of course - not yet - but if Scooter lied it is reasonable to at least suspect the VP and to a somewhat lessor extent - the Pres. Rove is also under suspicion. So the entire White House is under a cloud of suspicion.
That said.
We all need to take a step back and breathe. We know what we know in our guts - it is intuitively obvious - but we don’t have the proof - not yet - soon maybe - eventually maybe - but not yet.
I was opposed to this war from the start, but now that we are there I think that we need to win it - or at least leave it better than we found it - or at least least tie it - or at the very least least try not to leave the impression that the terrorist drove us out. In the process however we are creating many more terrorist than we are killing and training many of them with live combat training against the most powerful army in the world. Most of the terrorist who come against us in Iraq will die, but to borrow from the Orwellian double speak of this Administration the few that do survive will double plus tough. We might have had a reasonable chance of winning if we had chosen a real commander and chief but now it seems doubtful at best. So we may eventually need to withdraw - accept defeat in Iraq - keep our powder dry - and prepare for the big one. Millions of Americans may eventually die as a direct result of the incompetence of this President.
Posted by: Ray G. at October 30, 2005 12:19 AMMike P,
Please explain to me how Clinton’s bj is the same as Libby violating national security. Yes, each indictment may have the same words, yet the severity of the crime being investigated is totally different. Or would it be ok in the republican thinking if a mass murder was only facing these same charges of obstruction? How about the leaders of Enron?
Be careful, this is a loaded qestion. One only hurt a few people emotionally and one got thousands of people killed. Now, unless you are willing to concede that our national security takes second fiddle to your party’s wants and our laws don’t matter than you might have a leg to stand on. Until than, keep trying to excuse Mr. Libby’s actions.
BTW, Mr. Libby still could be made to testify against Cheny and/or Rove even if convicted of obstruction.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 30, 2005 06:16 AMAll
Two days ago I post at the top of this thread.
Say whatever you want but bottom line is this:Libby was indicted for comitting no underlying crime.
His indictment stems from the investigation,but no underlying crime.
Plus he stands a more than excellent chance of being acquited because of a faulty memory.
Here is an early 2006 prediction peering into my crystal ball:
1.Rove does the right thing and resigns,taking pressure off the president.
The right goes crazy.
2.Several weeks later,the vice-president resignsciting health issues
.
The right goes even more crazy.
3.The president appoints John McCain as vice-president.
The right stops going crazy.Smiles break out all over America’s heartland.
4.Six months before his term is due to end,the president resigns and McCain becomes president,with Guilliani becoming vice-president.
The right is now crazy with happiness and Democrats begin to jump off bridges everywhere.
5.In ‘08 McCain becomes president in a one-side election.
Bush is hailed as THE politicial genuis of the millenia.
6.Later it is disclosed that the above is the “Rove” plan.
7.Ted Kennedy,now 75,sees the error of his ways and embarks on an around the world cruise in an energy-efficient row-boat,after announcing his retirement.He plans to write his memories in ancient Gaelic.
Brilliant
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 30, 2005 07:23 AMBut the liberals are not producing anything new at all.
Jack, that’s just ridiculous. Accusing Democrats of not having new ideas is like accusing the Kennedys of excessive sobriety.
Judging by Kerry’s ideas last year and the Democrat’s legislative agenda this year, we — unlike the Republicans who dominate Congress but still can’t implement their wacko agenda — are on America’s side of the issues.
Poll after poll shows that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans with the economy and domestic issues. The Republicans have nothing.
For example, here’s an issue that Republicans absolutely refuse to address to the detriment of American businesses AND American workers.
If we want our companies to be ready to compete in the world economy, we have to hold down health care costs. Today, Starbucks spends more on health care than on coffee. GM spends more on health care than on steel. We can’t ask our companies to go head-to-head with foreign competitors with this burden on their backs. Families can’t get ahead when they are mired in endless paperwork and unable to get access to health care, creating untold anxiety and costing even more in the long run. Your bank account should not determine whether your children can see a doctor.
For the last year, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation that uses market forces to bring the cost of healthcare down. Republicans have opposed us every step of the way. If you’re having problems paying for healthcare, blame the Republican obstructionists in Congress.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 30, 2005 07:29 AMSicilian Eagle,
How is obstructing an investigation into a national security issue not a crime? As far as the rest of your story, is the republicans really that dense?
2006 will see a major airing of just how secure America has become under four years of republican leadership. Katrina will be exposed as a federal power play over State Rights which cost Americans their lives, and President Bush will split the conservative right by giving into the Democrats demands.
However, keep spinning the Libby story for as much as you like because one fact that can not be denied even by Mr. Libby himself is that he was the first person to give Mrs. Wilson’s name to somebody outside the government. Is that not like getting your hand caught in the cookie jar?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 30, 2005 08:38 AMHenry,
Nice try although we are talking about perjury and obstruction of justice here, not murder vs another crime. Nice straw man arguement though.
The perjury and obstruction charges being faced by Libby are the exact same charges Clinton was impeached under. NO difference. There are no charges of violating national security against Libby so that is not a relevant point.
Just curious why making logical arguements against your comments makes the Republicans “my party” but that type of narrow minded pigeon holing is part of the problem today. I did ntt make excuses for Libby although I know that putting words in others mouth is the method of debating for some.
Mike P
Posted by: Mike P at October 30, 2005 08:54 AMI love it when conservative Republicans start sound like old-time movie gangsters: I can beat this stinkin’ rap. You coppers got nothin’ on me. My pal Don George’ll get me off…
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 30, 2005 09:24 AMHenry et al.
As someone famous once said:
“Bring ‘em on”
Libby wasn’t indicted for an underlying crime,Henry.
There was no underlying crime.
Kinda easy for me to understand that,how about you?
Can you first agree that there was no underlying crime?
Re-read the Journal piece I posted above.It says it all.
As I said,Joe Wilson is a skunk,and this week the slime will beging to oooze out on him as this beging to take shape as apurely partisian ploy.
Scooter Libby is a good man…a patriot…and I am saddened that a man who has been a devoted public servant is going to get crucified.
Either way,I want the debate on the run up to the war to begin once and for all.
Everyone deserves that
Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 30, 2005 10:46 AMJack, you said “the liberals are not producing anything new at all”, which is pretty funny really. Especially when you consider that the only real agenda from the Right for the last 25 years has been (1) villify all liberals, and (2) see #1. Your statement is another example of rule 1.
Mike P,
Obstruction of justice and perjury aren’t “real” crimes? They were “real crimes” when the Republicans to try to oust the President of the US. But now they aren’t real crimes? Excuse me, but your double standard is showing.
AP
The Kerry proposals were back to the old stuff we used to try or else they were a kind of Bush lite. The Kerry campaign’s salient argument was just that they would do better than Bush because they would have better foresight and execution. The American voters didn’t buy it. Democratic health care plans look a lot like those in Europe. We can talk a lot about Europe, but many Americans would not accept that sort of care. Beyond that, Europe benefits from being a free rider on things like drug and medicine development. We Americans pay the big prices; Europeans get to use them after that at controlled prices. It is a bad situation for us. But if we also controlled prices, innovation would slow and we all would suffer.
The most innovative idea to address our health and solvency in the future was Social Security reform. As near as I can see, the Dem response was a mixture of “nothing needs be done” and “we can just raise SS taxes to cover shortfalls.” Even if you believe this is true, it is not a new idea. But the Dems managed to kill the initiative. We will rediscover this crisis in a couple of years and it will be worse.
I think you mentioned some kind of Democratic contract with America. Did it come out?
If the Dems have some good new ideas, they are not doing a good job of letting everyone know what they are.
Posted by: Jack at October 30, 2005 11:37 AMSicilian Eagle,
First, Mr. Liby is not charged for an underlying crime due to the fact that his actions have stopped a Presidental appointed special prosecutor from learning exactly what took place approx. 2 years ago. In fact, although not a lawyer, does not this also mean that Mr. Libby is disobeying our Commander and Cheif during a time of war by not telling the truth? Wasn’t that order by the President to his entire staff to cooperate fully in the investigation of Mrs. Wilson given during a time of war? Hence, a more serious problem exists than an underlying crime. Or does the Republicans believe that a person only have to follow executive orders that they agree with? Therefore, the underlying crime is disobeying a direct order from the Commander and Chief during a time when the Nation is at war.
SE, I do agree with you that Mr. Wilson should of respected his involvement with the Yellow Cake and Iraq; thus releasing the information through a reporter with hard proof (i.e. reasonable doubt). Nevertheless, the rule of law has to take first place here in America. And while my Self-Nature is that of an anti-authoritarian, I must concede to the demand of our President when matters of National Security are in play. Otherwise what is stopping our entire government from releasing information that can/would cause get harm to our way of life?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 30, 2005 01:35 PMSE-
No underlying crime? Fitzgerald’s logic is that as a result of this crime, Fitzgerald could not determine the underlying crime. It’s not that none was committed. It’s not even that he may not charge him with something else later. It’s simply that Libby, for whatever reason, decided not to tell the truth, and decided to get in the investigation’s way.
As for the faulty memory, it served him well enough to do a great many things that would have been impossible if he had already forgotten them. Memory is not a perfect thing. I know this from my studies. But people remember plenty of things well over time, and the evidence shows his memory couldn’t have been that bad.
Mike P-
Clinton was impeached, not indicted, and the standard of evidence for bringing such charges is different.
Libby’s indictment is most definitely related to national security, in that he lied about his leak of classified information to the press. Have additional charges been ruled out? No. Fitzgerald still has that option. Was their no breach of national security? Well, that’s the problem. Libby made it impossible to determine because of his lying and interference with the investigation. Your claim that there was no national security violation is contingent on a case that was damaged by his lying. Libby may have indeed committed exactly such a crime, but his intransigence may have gotten in the way of his prosecution.
So, instead of trying to prosecute him on the muddied issues, Fitzgerald indicts him on the very clear dishonesty he used to evade the indictment on the national security related laws.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2005 02:21 PMStephen,
Although there are different elements required between an indictment and an impeachment ( the political element being the most obvious one) the fact is that Clinton did lose his license due to testifying falsly under oath. He was not convicted of a criminal charge of perjury but then again neither has Libby been convicted. So at this point all we have are charges with no underlying criminal charges or indictments. Essentially the same thing between the two.
As of yet Libby has not been charged with any national security violations so no it is not an underlying charge at this time. You do not have to agree with the facts but that is what they are.
Posted by: Mike P at October 30, 2005 04:02 PMElliot
What are those new ideas? Really.
You might not like the Republican ideas. The SS debate showed new ideas. It was shot down, but it was new. The ownership society is a new idea.
I have said on many occasions that I liked Clinton. Why? Because he helped implement many good ideas like Welfare Reform and NAFTA. Liberals have largely disavowed these things. What do we have now?
Posted by: Jack at October 30, 2005 08:30 PM