Scooter Libby found guilty.

All because someone got "outed" who wasn't even covert to begin with.
Click to expand...

Wow, the amount of misinformation out there is astounding. From a guest on Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter none the less, not surprising.

She was NOC, she was covert. She doesn't have a black passport that protects her. Outing her is a crime, if it wasn't, the CIA, FBI, justice department, and the white house wouldn't have bothered with an investigation.

But hey, she married some dude that disproved some of the WMD claims used to support the war. She got what she deserved.

Great work there by Ann Coulter, one small paragraph about Libby, and the rest whining about how being Republican is such a horrible thing. The Republican house, Republican senate, Republican white house, and Republican supreme court must really hate Libby.
 
foob? foob are you there? If so, then listen vewy vewy cawfuwy

Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time her name was "outed" and had not been for some time. She was merely a CIA employee by then with "classified" status; which everyone who works there has. She worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues AT CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

I repeat ...

Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time her name was "outed" and had not been for some time. She was merely a CIA employee by then with "classified" status; which everyone who works there has. She worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues AT CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

Had the circumstances been as you have obviously convinced yourself that they were, Richard Armitage, who has admitted to being the primary source of the "leak" would be on trial or at least under indictment. He is neither.

You know why?

Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time her name was "outed" and had not been for some time. She was merely a CIA employee by then with "classified" status; which everyone who works there has. She worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues AT CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

Do you think that a prosecutor who went after Libby as vigorously as he did for mere purjury would pass up a chance to take down the number two man in the State Department?

Even Fitzgerald acknowledged this when asked about Plames "covert" status:
"I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward . . . We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."
Click to expand...

Yet the left wing press still refers to her as "covert" in story after story and Richard Armu8itage, the admitted leaker, still waklks the streets a free man.

You know why?

Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time her name was "outed" and had not been for some time. She was merely a CIA employee by then with "classified" status; which everyone who works there has. She worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues AT CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.
 
Er... Your quote of Fitzgerald doesn't prove anything you say at all. He says
"I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert
Click to expand...

So he gave no assertion whether Valerie Wilson was covert or not, and you can somehow use that to prove that she was not covert? Genius, you win the internets.

Well I guess repeating stuff many times makes it true, its like some law of the internets.

Richard Armitage wasn't charged because the prosecutor has to prove he knowingly and intentionally outed Valerie Plame. Which is why Libby is only charged with perjury, because it is the only thing the prosecutor can slam dunk on.

I like how just because there isn't enough evidence to charge someone, that somehow means he is innocent. All it means is there isn't enough evidence.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-200, 50 U.S.C. § 421-426) is a United States federal law that
makes it a federal crime to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent who one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S. intelligence agency.
Click to expand...

Even if she wasn't at the time in a covert role, her position was classified. Which means Armitage should be charged with disclosing classified information. But he didn't, oh that must mean she was probably just a janitor at Langley.

Seriously, no charges =/=> not guilty, it only implies that the prosecutor does not feel he has enough evidence to convict.

Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively", but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward
Click to expand...

You have to prove he knew of the status, not just that he disclosed she worked at the CIA, to convict. Which is why he wasn't charged. Such cases are extremely difficult to prove.

I'm sorry, but until the justice department, the CIA, the FBI, or the special prosecutor states she was not in a covert role, you can bring up all the Ann Coulter wannabe quotes you want, it would be pretty difficult to convince anyone either way.
 
Please stop repeating stuff thinking that makes it true. Provide a link supporting your statement.

Here, I'll start by quoting Patrick Fitzgerald:
"I can tell you, on the face of the indictment it states that her relationship with the CIA was classified. And I have 100 percent confidence in that information. And we would not plead it in an indictment. While we didn't make it an issue at the trial, because the issue was whether or not Mr. Libby perjured himself under oath, there is no doubt that her relationship with the CIA was classified, and that's just a fact."

The very fact that her relationship with the CIA was classified means that exposing this classified information was "outing" her. Her neighbors didn't know. There is a rumor that wilson told people on the DC cocktail circuit, but that has never been supported.

I think outing is an appropriate word.
 
Read this http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554336 and then ask yourself "I wonder if someone in the jury room was pumping them for a conviction; and just why would he do that?"

Because it is estimated that the difference in price for a book written about a conviction over that of an aquittal is ~$500,000.

Guess what the subject of his next book will be?

Oh, and by the way, do not get between this guy and a TV camera if you value your safety.
 
Just look at the court transcripts, it was pretty obvious (to me), that he was guilty of perjury (grand jury testimony) and making false statements to the FBI. Multiple witnesses state that he did mention her, and that he had learned of her status from VP Cheney before he "learned" about it from a journalist. It's like this, the defendent says he didn't, five (or more) witnesses said he did. You expect a jury to say he's not guilty?

He should have said "I don't remember", like all other politicians. Instead, he chose to shoot himself in the foot. He even signed a blanket waiver allowing the journalists to discuss their conversations. I don't know, maybe he was brave, or foolish, but nobody made him the fall guy but himself.

Anyway regarding Plame's status in the CIA, it's obvious both of us have no strong evidence either way. But you don't find it weird that not one government official or government agency has come out to say she wasn't covert? Would be pretty easy to prove wouldn't it? Wouldn't it seem more likely she was covert, and proving this status would require releasing additional classified information which the CIA and the white house are not willing to do?
 
Guess what the subject of his next book will be?

Oh, and by the way, do not get between this guy and a TV camera if you value your safety
Click to expand...

I have no doubt of that :D

However, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Too bad OJ's jury didn't realize the monetary value of a guilty verdict..

I think it is clear why there are lots of folk on a jury. They can't all write a book.
 
Anyway regarding Plame's status in the CIA, it's obvious both of us have no strong evidence either way. But you don't find it weird that not one government official or government agency has come out to say she wasn't covert? Would be pretty easy to prove wouldn't it? Wouldn't it seem more likely she was covert, and proving this status would require releasing additional classified information which the CIA and the white house are not willing to do?
Click to expand...

Which is it? First you swear she was covert and now you claim there is no proof either way. There is proof. No charges were filed as a result of her identity being disclosed. Why would the CIA comment? How do you know they didn't tell Fitzgerald no laws had been broken in regards to this? What would the CIA gain or lose by providing this info to the public? I'm pretty sure none of them wanted anywhere close to this case.

Maybe you'll want to edit your whole "Wow, the amount of misinformation out there is astounding" quote. Oh I forgot, it was something Hannity said so it MUST be false.:rolleyes:

Stick to the argument and leave her husband for another thread.
 
Which is it? First you swear she was covert and now you claim there is no proof either way. There is proof. No charges were filed as a result of her identity being disclosed. Why would the CIA comment? How do you know they didn't tell Fitzgerald no laws had been broken in regards to this? What would the CIA gain or lose by providing this info to the public? I'm pretty sure none of them wanted anywhere close to this case.

Maybe you'll want to edit your whole "Wow, the amount of misinformation out there is astounding" quote. Oh I forgot, it was something Hannity said so it MUST be false.

Stick to the argument and leave her husband for another thread.
Click to expand...

I've already mentioned why no charges does not imply she wasn't covert. If you can bring up an argument for her being not covert, feel free to do so. I'm still waiting. I'll even take a statement from a janitor at the CIA that she wasn't covert. Please anything to convince us. You do know you proved my point by asking questions which you cannot answer. How do we know the CIA did or did not? You don't, I don't. The CIA were the ones that first brought up the issue to the Justice Department, because they suspected a crime had be commited by revealing her identity, but obviously those right wing conservatives that work for the CIA know better. :rolleyes:

Obviously some people will be so sure they are right, I for one am able to retract my opinion she was covert and say both sides have no definite proof.

It is misinformation, because they are categorically stating something they cannot substantiate. Not even one shred of evidence.

I could edit my old post, but I rather let others see me admitting I was wrong, than confuse people with edited posts.

I ain't the one changing the subject, Jim couldn't substantiate his claims she wasn't covert, so started talking about juror bias. Who even mentioned her husband???

But hey, whatever floats your boat.
 
What a waste of my tax dollars. :( Libby appeals, drags it out till late, late 2008. Bush is almost out of office, gives the pardon. Libby goes on to make $$$$ just like Oliver North and Liddy.
 
Who even mentioned her husband???
Click to expand...


You did with a statement that you can't prove and neither could Wilson.


But hey, she married some dude that disproved some of the WMD claims used to support the war. She got what she deserved.
Click to expand...

You show an obvious bias and it shows me that I'm wasting keystrokes even now.

but obviously those right wing conservatives that work for the CIA know better:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Great work there by Ann Coulter, one small paragraph about Libby, and the rest whining about how being Republican is such a horrible thing. The Republican house, Republican senate, Republican white house, and Republican supreme court must really hate Libby.
Click to expand...

Feel free to have at it. I'm done wasting time with this subject. If Libby perjured himself fine lock him up, if Cheney, Rove, or even Bush broke the law then remove them from office. I don't care what political slant you are. When Cunningham was convicted and sentenced he got exactly what he deserved. I'll agree that Libby is an idiot for not saying he didn't remember though.

My main argument is that Plame isn't covert and as stated before the author of that bill is the one that said it, not Hannity or Coulter.
 
For those of you thinking this is a miscarriage of justice (nearly every talking head on Fox, and some of you here) that Libby was found guilty... isn't the similarity to Bill Clinton remarkable?

Even if you take the position that there was no underlying crime in the Plame scandal, neither is it a crime to be adventuresome in the Oval Office.

The lesson is: Oversight is good. Obstructing justice and lying under oath is bad.
 
You did with a statement that you can't prove and neither could Wilson.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I'm saying I can't prove she is or isn't covert. Wilson couldn't prove those WMD claims. Not the same thing.
 
When you commute to Langley every day, and park in the CIA parking lot, and walk in the front door of the CIA building, how "covert" can you possibly be?
 
foob

I ain't the one changing the subject, Jim couldn't substantiate his claims she wasn't covert, so started talking about juror bias.
Click to expand...
You confuse misdirection with additional information.

The title of the thread is "Scooter Libby found guilty" so all avenues of exploration as to how the jury came to that verdict are on the table -- including being tainted by a journalist juror. There was no attempt to change the subject as the subject is "Scooter Libby found guilty".

The fact that there was a journalist juror certainly did not warrant a separate thread on the subject -- unless you want to start one.
 
Scooter should be pardoned after he is sentenced and on the same day VP Dick should resign. Then he can go back to geezer skeet shooting on his 'ranch' with the other Fudds.
 
When I was in the USAF, I was in the Intelligence career field, we had several rules (unofficial of course):
1) Never tell an elected official anything, let them get it through proper channels - briefings in other words.
2) Anything an elected official gains access to will be public knowledge soon.
3) Elected officials are to be respected when they visit the 'site' and answers given as generic and non-classified in nature.
4) If said official presses for info, let the person in charge (NCOIC) or Officer take the question.


It appears to me someone forgot these when they let the VP or whomever learn the identity of ANY agent, that is NOT 'NEED TO KNOW' info.

Need to Know was a catch phase we used to determine if someone asking the question had the access and right to the info.


With all that said, Scooter lied to a grand jury. If it was a minor thing like a date changed between two appearances months apart - I can see it as a mistake. If it was a matter that he didn't know the name, then heard the name from someone - that's a significant point that should be clear in ones mind.

Lying under oath = Jail time, unless of course you're.......
 
If Plame really was outed (as in she was covert)then why didn't anyone get convicted of that crime???

They determined how the "word got out"

And why are they all done with the investigation now that they got a conviction...on perjury of all things

This whole trial was about trying to turn Libby to get him to rat out the VP for something that didn't really happen
 
It appears to me someone forgot these when they let the VP or whomever learn the identity of ANY agent, that is NOT 'NEED TO KNOW' info.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken the "primary" classification authority for any classified information in this country is the President/Vice President. Which is to say that the authority that various agencies have to classify information is given to them by these two, and thus they are authorized to know pretty much anything.

Cheney may not have had a "need to know," but I can't imagine it'd be hard for him to find out this information.

I seem to remember reading an interesting analysis a couple years back suggesting that the converse is true; since all primary authority to classify information rests with the President/VP, then they also have authority to declassify any information. At which point it was suggested that even if Plame's position in the CIA was covert, Cheney had the authority to declassify this info and thus couldn't get in any real trouble for leaking it.
 
If Plame really was outed (as in she was covert)then why didn't anyone get convicted of that crime???
Click to expand...

Because Libby successfully muddied the waters.

There's a reason the White House still refuses to talk about this. It ain't because everything was above board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top