Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Repeat after me, Righties: It has not been established that there was no underlying crime!

Cycloptichorn

This is altogether good news...if transparency is valued.

Quote:

Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby's trial ruled Monday.

In a victory for the news media, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he has concerns about releasing the recordings while the case is under way, but that he has little choice under the law as applied in the federal court system in Washington, D.C.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8N3L3VO3.html

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Repeat after me, Righties: It has not been established that there was no underlying crime!

Cycloptichorn

I thought the justice system is based on "innocent until proven guilty," cyclops, so why should we have to prove a negative?

I say, be our guest, point out where an underlying crime has been established? Call Fitzfong himself and ask him if you need to. He's had 3 years or so to come up with one.

This is almost too funny.

You have denigrated salon.com in the past as not being reputable.
Now,you are using it as a source.

Whoops, responded to the wrong post. Point stands tho.

Blatham, where are you getting your trial coverage?

Cycloptichorn

blatham wrote:

This is altogether good news...if transparency is valued.

Quote:

Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby's trial ruled Monday.

In a victory for the news media, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he has concerns about releasing the recordings while the case is under way, but that he has little choice under the law as applied in the federal court system in Washington, D.C.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8N3L3VO3.html

This is almost too funny.

You have denigrated salon.com in the past as not being reputable.
Now,you are using it as a source.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Whoops, responded to the wrong post. Point stands tho.

Blatham, where are you getting your trial coverage?

Cycloptichorn

cyclo

All over the place...no particular source as reference. I read quite a few papers and sites each morning plus about three hours of news (PBS, MSNBC and Fox) most nights (yes, there are other things I should probably be doing).

ps...even the Brit papers are covering this in depth

blatham wrote:

This is altogether good news...if transparency is valued.

Quote:

Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby's trial ruled Monday.

In a victory for the news media, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he has concerns about releasing the recordings while the case is under way, but that he has little choice under the law as applied in the federal court system in Washington, D.C.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8N3L3VO3.html

This is almost too funny.

You have denigrated salon.com in the past as not being reputable.
Now,you are using it as a source.

ps...even the Brit papers are covering this in depth

I, unlike you, have no reason to doubt that Fitzgerald is doing his job to the best of his ability.

I also noticed that you have completely ignored all evidence presented to you that investigating a crime which was uncovered during the course of an investigation, is not only proper but a common occurance in the legal realm.

I'm going to start calling you 'Okifong' until you cease the Fitzfong nonsense. You have no reason to call Fitz that, as there is no evidence that he has acted inappropriately in any manner. You're basically slandering the guy because he is taking a member of your team to trial, for a perfectly valid crime - perjury and ObJustice.

I have never claimed that there has been established an underlying crime. I do know that there was an underlying event: Valerie Plame's identity was given to the media in order to combat Wilson's attack on the White House. Her identity was confidential (though not perhaps Covert, so don't jump my ass Tico) and should not have been talked about by those who signed forms promising not to talk about such things. Period. This isn't even in question.

The only question is whether or not enough evidence exists to convict someone for doing so. Let's say a murder happens, but the police can't find the body's hands or head. They can't identify the body. They can't charge anyone with the crime. Does this mean that there was no underlying crime, if during the investigation they turn up a gambling scheme in the same building where the body was found? Nope.

Face it - Libby had every reason to lie and there exists quite a bit of evidence that he did so. I would like you to tell me the version of events that you truly in your heart believed happened, to see if your beliefs square with the facts of the case. I have a feeling that you have deliberately kept yourself in the dark about certain facts in order to keep from coming to the conclusion that the allegations are true.

Cycloptichorn

blatham wrote:

ps...even the Brit papers are covering this in depth

Really? That's good to know - having always had the greatest respect for British papers, I'd like to check it out. Save me a little search time, if you would, please - where is that coverage in relationship to Page 3?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I, unlike you, have no reason to doubt that Fitzgerald is doing his job to the best of his ability.

I also noticed that you have completely ignored all evidence presented to you that investigating a crime which was uncovered during the course of an investigation, is not only proper but a common occurance in the legal realm.

I'm going to start calling you 'Okifong' until you cease the Fitzfong nonsense. You have no reason to call Fitz that, as there is no evidence that he has acted inappropriately in any manner. You're basically slandering the guy because he is taking a member of your team to trial, for a perfectly valid crime - perjury and ObJustice.

I have never claimed that there has been established an underlying crime. I do know that there was an underlying event: Valerie Plame's identity was given to the media in order to combat Wilson's attack on the White House. Her identity was confidential (though not perhaps Covert, so don't jump my ass Tico) and should not have been talked about by those who signed forms promising not to talk about such things. Period. This isn't even in question.

The only question is whether or not enough evidence exists to convict someone for doing so. Let's say a murder happens, but the police can't find the body's hands or head. They can't identify the body. They can't charge anyone with the crime. Does this mean that there was no underlying crime, if during the investigation they turn up a gambling scheme in the same building where the body was found? Nope.

Face it - Libby had every reason to lie and there exists quite a bit of evidence that he did so. I would like you to tell me the version of events that you truly in your heart believed happened, to see if your beliefs square with the facts of the case. I have a feeling that you have deliberately kept yourself in the dark about certain facts in order to keep from coming to the conclusion that the allegations are true.

Cycloptichorn

I addressed the subject of another crime uncovered in the course of investigating a crime. Further, your examples don't work, such as the murder, because in your case there is no doubt a murder took place, only there is not enough evidence to charge. In this case, no murder has been claimed, nothing, no crime at all has been claimed.

In fact, in this case with Libby, the defense cannot even use the fact that no underlying crime is claimed to have happened at all, let alone bring up the fact that nobody has been charged with the non-crime.

Also, I am not the only one drawing a parallel between Fitz and Nifong. Quite a few people are becoming very frustrated with this and beginning to call it what it is.

I think Fitz has lost his marbles. He is a details man, but he can't see the forest for the trees, and forgot there was a forest, because he is totally lost in the forest chopping on one innocent hapless tree that just happened to be growing there.

Cyclops, I think this has been posted already, but read it again. It expresses my sentiments perfectly.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MonaCharen/2007/02/02/a_farce_and_an_outrage

Cyclops, I forgot to mention in your murder example, where nobody is charged due to lack of evidence, the example does not work, because in this case, no body is found, and nobody is even found to be missing, yet Fitz is placing a man on trial for covering up a murder that never took place. More bizarre than that, the defense team cannot point out to the jury that no murder took place. Now, I always knew lawyers could make 2 + 2 = 5 if they wanted to bad enough, and this seems to be a good case of that happening.

P. S. I posted the above while you were posting your last. I will check it all out and get back later. We are plowing the same old ground over and over. Mona Charen nailed it.

mysteryman wrote:

blatham wrote:

This is altogether good news...if transparency is valued.

Quote:

Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby's trial ruled Monday.

In a victory for the news media, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he has concerns about releasing the recordings while the case is under way, but that he has little choice under the law as applied in the federal court system in Washington, D.C.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8N3L3VO3.html

This is almost too funny.

You have denigrated salon.com in the past as not being reputable.
Now,you are using it as a source.

I must disagree. Blatham is devoted to salon.com, and I can't imagine he has ever denigrated it. (He would also never admit it's leftist leanings.)

You must be thinking of another source.

Libby Judge: Even I Don't Know Plame's StatusWalton gave the jury this instruction: "No evidence will be presented to you with regard to Valerie Plame Wilson's status. That is because what her actual status was, or whether any damage would result from disclosure of her status, are totally irrelevant to your decision of guilt or innocence. You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them."Walton repeated his admonition several times in the next few days, and then, on January 29, made a statement that seemed stunning in its implications, although it received virtually no attention outside the courtroom. Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was."

• "Was there any discussion about whether [Mrs. Wilson] was covert or classified?" asked prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of witness Judith Miller.
  
  
• "I never in my wildest dreams thought this information would be classified," said former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, referring to Mrs. Wilson's status.
  
  
• "The crime, as I understood it, had to do with people in the administration passing classified information to the press," said former top CIA official Robert Grenier.

If any of those statements has led jurors to ponder whether Mrs. Wilson's status was, in Fitzgerald's words, "covert or classified," then those jurors are violating the judge's order. And Fitzgerald seems perfectly happy about it. After all, the blackout on Mrs. Wilson's status keeps defense lawyers from highlighting Fitzgerald's failure to charge anyone with outing her, and it allows the prosecution to suggest, without actually saying, that Libby and the Bush administration committed some sort of crime.

The judge's ruling has made some arguments in court seem more than a little ridiculous. Last Thursday, for example, both sides spent a long time, out of the presence of the jury, bickering over how Fitzgerald will present evidence concerning Libby's alleged motive to lie. Libby was afraid for his job, Fitzgerald theorized, after President Bush announced that anybody who leaked classified information about a CIA agent would be fired.

Why was it that everyone was so agitated in late 2003?