Unfortunately, it appears to me that, should Libby be convicted, pardons would soon follow. The fact of the matter is that Bush is involved in the Plame matter up to his scrawny neck.
I see it that way too; Bush will pardon Libby, and all this investigation and court proceedings would be for naught.
That's one of the reason why I'd like to see this issue settled after Bush leaves office.
Another issue might become the investigation of the administration and its part in Plamegate.
Cheney provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Impeachment may be apropos.
Paul Abrams (Huffington Post)
Bio
02.19.2007
New Libby Trial Information Trumps Dems "No Impeachment" Pledge
READ MORE: Nancy Pelosi
During the 2006 mid-term campaign, Nancy Pelosi pledged that a Democratic victory would not mean a drive to impeach the President (and, by implication, the Vice-President). Much of the call for impeachment was based upon allegations of lying to Congress and the American people about the pre-war intelligence, and violations of the oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution when they knowingly violated laws and Constitutional provisions protecting individual rights and liberties.
Weighty stuff, to be sure, but taken off the table by the Speaker-to-be's pledge, based upon what was known then.
As indicated in Libby Trial Shows Cheney Provided Aid-and-Comfort to Enemies of the United States, Libby and Rove could easily have said that they told reporters not knowing that Valerie Plame was undercover, but that would have pointed the finger at Dick Cheney as the person who learned of Plame's identity, and (whether properly declassified or not) decided to out her and her operation. To protect Cheney, Libby and Rove conceived the alibi that they heard about Plame from reporters and, believing the reporters would not testify to their conversations, thought they had created a perfect circle.
The Libby Trial, therefore, presents information that it was Dick Cheney provided aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States. Unlike the above-mentioned transgressions of the Bush Administration, that would be defended as "political" judgments (and they covered themselves with rogue legal opinions on torture, habeas corpus violations and illegal searches), Cheney's act is specific, concrete and traitorous. It is also new, outside the scope covered by the pre-election pledge.
The Congress cannot ignore it.
"At that point, the defense objected, in part because Fitzgerald had just bulldozed over one of the main trial rules set down by Judge Reggie Walton. On the first day of the trial, Walton told the jury, "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.""
from:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjZiMjQyY2RlMjM5YzY1ZTQ4M2JkZTMyZTVlMWYxYTM=
So Fitzgerald admits finally this trial is about nothing more than politics. Namely his effort to get the administration, namely Cheney, for what amounts to politics. If it was the crime, Armitage would be sitting in jail by now.
okie, You made the claim that Fitzgerald has politicized this trial. Show proof. As a prosecutor, he has been relentless in his pursuit of the law against both democrats and republicans.
You never did answer my question okie.. Which of the 4 choices do you think Fitzgerald is guilty of?
parados wrote:Okie.
We can both agree that the first thing Fitzgerald should have done in his investigation was to determine the role of Plame and if she met the standard under the law to pursue that investigation.
That leads us to 4 possible choices of what Fitzgerald did before he questioned any WH administration officials. Which do you think is accurate or supply a different choice.
1. He was incompetent and didn't ask the CIA anything before questioning the WH officials.
2. He did ask the CIA and determined she was classified but not covert but there was still a possible violation of the law simply because her status was classified.
3. He did ask the CIA and determined classified but not covert but he went forward anyway simply because he saw a political opportunity.
4. He did ask the CIA and determined she was covert and then went on to question WH officials.
I thought I answered it once. None of the four options fit. And until he tells us what he decided about the covert status, still nothing on that after years of this investigation, we are left to speculate, based on what we can read in the press. I do not know what goes on inside Fitzgerald's head, but I can tell you this, it makes no sense to me.
I think it is closest to No. 3, although he does not see it as political, but that is sadly what it has ended up being, in my opinion.
okie,
Do you think a competent prosecutor would have ascertained the status of Plame before they asked any questions of WH officials?
That is what I have been contending in this argument since Day 1 Parados, but it remains to be seen that we have a competent prosecutor. I've seen no evidence yet.
OK okie,
Do you think Ashcroft was a competent Attorney General?
1. Ashcroft started the investigation in Sept of 2003.
2. In Oct of 2003, the FBI first questioned WH officials including Libby.
3. Ashcroft recused himself in Dec of 2003
4. Fitzgerald was appointed on Dec 30th, 2003.
That leaves us with..
Ashcroft started the investigation.
Ashcroft should have found out the status of Plame before he questioned anyone at WH.
Ashcroft DID question WH staff.
Ashcroft then thought there was enough there to recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor.
Why would Ashcroft question WH staff if Plame was not covert and there could be no crime?
Why would Ashcroft recuse himself if Plame was not covert and there could be no crime?
Was Ashcorft's action only politics?
All it would have taken is a single phone call to the CIA. Ridiculous to posit that these people of intelligence are incapable of making a simple phone call.
Parados, nice post above.
Cycloptichorn
And if he isn't, what would you do?
cicerone imposter wrote:And if he isn't, what would you do?
Notthing.
I dont really care,and if he is convicted,that is no skin off my nose either way.
You seem to have mre invested in this case then I do,judging by your writings.
So,how will you react if he is aquitted?
Yeah, I like to see those that break the laws of our country pay the consequences.
cicerone imposter wrote:Yeah, I like to see those that break the laws of our country pay the consequences.
And therein lies the problem.
You want to see him convicted for lying about a crime that didnt happen,and others on here are arguing "how can you lie about a crime that never happened"?
Remember,eve the prosecutor isnt claiming that there was crime committed when Valerie Plames name was mentioned.
So,will you accept the verdict if he is aquitted?
Or,will you then claim that there was a "conspiracy" to aquit him?
mm wrote: And therein lies the problem.
You want to see him convicted for lying about a crime that didnt happen,and others on here are arguing "how can you lie about a crime that never happened"?
It's not up to me to determine whether any crimes were committed. That's up to the judge and jury.
cicerone imposter wrote:mm wrote: And therein lies the problem.
You want to see him convicted for lying about a crime that didnt happen,and others on here are arguing "how can you lie about a crime that never happened"?
It's not up to me to determine whether any crimes were committed. That's up to the judge and jury.
As I understand the case (and correct me if I'm wrong),LIbby is on trial for lying to the GJ about when her name was released and if he released it.
Now,since even the prosecutor isnt claiming that releasing her name was a crime,I really dont see how it matters what Libby may or may not have done.
How can he be lying about a crime that didnt happen?
That is what I dont understand.
The crime, as you put it, is lying to the FBI and grand jury.
