Pardon Scooter Libby

[Exsubmariner]

There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hope he rooms with a big dude named Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? You mean people who lie under oath should actually face jail time? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah. He's going to go all Gitmo on Libby's ass. I bet that sissy Libby doesn't even want a pardon. He wants Bubba-meat.

[ QUOTE ]
I bet that sissy Libby doesn't even want a pardon. He wants Bubba-meat.

[/ QUOTE ]


Now that's juth thilly. On thow menny lev-ulls.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you're correct, what's his self interest? Why's a guy with as long a career as his interested in getting into partisan nonsense when he's avoided it for so long?

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you joking? I guess there is some tiny possibility that the indictment is filled with falsehood, but quoting from the indictment (emphasis added):

"14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, <font color="red">LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.</font>"

"17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, <font color="red">LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.</font>"

What scares me is that you probably believe the crap you spew.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you joking? I guess there is some tiny possibility that the indictment is filled with falsehood, but quoting from the indictment (emphasis added):

"14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, <font color="red">LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.</font>"

"17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, <font color="red">LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.</font>"

What scares me is that you probably believe the crap you spew.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are quoting from the indictment is not related to a charge of outing a CIA operative, it's background for charges of perjury. The prosecutor has clearly shown that he believes these statements from the indictment, and that the actions cited are not a crime -- if they are true they conflict with his testimony, that's the charge.

It's pretty weak.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you joking? I guess there is some tiny possibility that the indictment is filled with falsehood, but quoting from the indictment (emphasis added):

"14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, <font color="red">LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.</font>"

"17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, <font color="red">LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.</font>"

What scares me is that you probably believe the crap you spew.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are quoting from the indictment is not related to a charge of outing a CIA operative, it's background for charges of perjury. The prosecutor has clearly shown that he believes these statements from the indictment, and that the actions cited are not a crime -- if they are true they conflict with his testimony, that's the charge.

It's pretty weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Fitzgerald said Libby committed perjury because far from hearing of Plame's ID from reporters, he in fact was the first person to leak the classified information that Plame worked for the CIA outside of the government. The crime was of course lying about this.

It's like Alger Hiss, who like Libby was charged with perjury, not espionage. He was convicted and served 44 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Fitzgerald said Libby committed perjury because far from hearing of Plame's ID from reporters, he in fact was the first person to leak the classified information that Plame worked for the CIA outside of the government. The crime was of course lying about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no outing of a covert agent – the statute didn’t apply to Plame. Libby is being charged with covering up a non-existent “crime”.

This will be interesting to see unfold if it ever gets to trial. Perjury is extremely hard to prove, and the obstruction of justice charge only applies if there is an underlying crime, which even Fitzgerald admitted did not occure.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There was no outing of a covert agent – the statute didn’t apply to Plame

[/ QUOTE ]

You can have one without the other. Assume it wasn't illegal, that doesn't mean that Libby didn't out her.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fitzgerald said Libby committed perjury because far from hearing of Plame's ID from reporters, he in fact was the first person to leak the classified information that Plame worked for the CIA outside of the government. The crime was of course lying about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no outing of a covert agent – the statute didn’t apply to Plame. Libby is being charged with covering up a non-existent “crime”.

This will be interesting to see unfold if it ever gets to trial. Perjury is extremely hard to prove, and the obstruction of justice charge only applies if there is an underlying crime, which even Fitzgerald admitted did not occure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? There clearly was an outing of a covert agent. The question is whether or not Libby did it intentionally, with malice, et cetera.

The reason Fitzgerald did not charge Libby with violating the espionage act is not because there was "no outing of a covert agent" as you stated, it was because it wasn't clear that Libby's leaking of that information (in other words, the outing of the agent) was a violation of the espionage act, in part because of Libby's perjury and obstruction.

A secondary reason Fitzgerald didn't use the act is that he did not want to use this case to set a precedent that would turn the espionage act into something like UK's official secrets act which the espionage act was not designed to do.