Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

So, is it criminal to repeat a bunch of lies on an online forum?

Libby prepares request for new trial
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
Wed Mar 7, 1:16 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Attorneys for convicted former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby began working on a request for a new trial Wednesday as the Bush White House tried to knock down speculation about a possible pardon in the CIA leak case.

MM said:

If he lied,then I am glad he got convicted.
I have said that before.

What people went to jail over the billing records from the Rose Law Firm that mysteriously disappeared from the White House residence,then miraculously reappeared after the case was over?
Who went to jail for the stealing of records from the National Archives by one of Clintons old staff members?

As for the tape recordings,surely you remember Watergate?

As for the TRavel office staff and the known lies...

THat was when the travel office staff in the WH were charged with criminal activities.
They were all aquitted,and it turned out that Hillary had instigated it just to get those people replaced.


MM, as usual, you are ignorant of the facts. Hubbel went to jail for overbilling the law firm. Burger got probation, just missing jail time. Only the head of the travel office was tried. Despite having two sets of books, and living far beyond his means, a stupid jury acquitted him. They all were political appointees, and Clinton was right in cleaning this trash out. Regarding the records found in the residence, no one knows how they got there, and there was no allegation that any crime occurred.

The fireworks has just begun.

From the NYT:

March 7, 2007
Pardon Libby? Left and Right Erupt in a Fight
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, March 7 ?- If some people imagined a verdict in the criminal trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. would calm the political passions surrounding his fate, they may have forgotten two words with a combustible history: presidential pardon.

The 11 jurors had barely pronounced Mr. Libby guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury on Tuesday when a new donnybrook broke out.

"Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct," declared Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority Leader, a stance echoed by other Congressional Democrats, editorial writers and bloggers on the left.

On the right, The Wall Street Journal thundered in an editorial today, "The time for a pardon is now" ?- a point of view shared by The Weekly Standard, The National Review and conservative admirers and friends of Mr. Libby. Many of the calls for his pardon demanded immediate action, instead of a wait for appeals to wend their way through the courts.

President Bush has avoided comment on the pardon question, telling an interviewer today from the Spanish-language version of CNN that in view of Mr. Libby's plans to seek a new trial and, if necessary, to appeal his conviction, "it's inappropriate for me, or the administration, to be issuing comments about this serious matter."

As on Tuesday, the president added an expression of sympathy. "On a personal note, I was sad," the president said. "I was sad for a man who had worked in my administration, and particularly sad for his family."

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, did not rule out an eventual pardon for Mr. Libby, who served from 2001 until his indictment in October 2005 as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"As we pointed out before, there is a process, you know, and it's available to anybody who has been convicted in the United States," Mr. Snow said.

For those who shun the pro-pardon, anti-pardon political fray, there's a third option, so to speak. The online futures exchange Intrade.com has created a market in Libby pardon futures.

"There's good interest in the market already," John Delaney, Intrade's chief executive, said by telephone from Dublin. He said traders so far had collectively predicted a 23 percent chance of a pardon by the end of 2007 and 63 percent by the end of President Bush's term.

Editorials backing a pardon for Mr. Libby were posted today on the Web site of Mr. Libby's legal defense fund, scooterlibby.com. The fund has raised about $4 million, with tens of thousands of dollars in new online donations arriving in the hours after the guilty verdict, said Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for the defense, who declined to comment on the pardon issue.

"We all think a new trial and an acquittal would be most desirable," said Richard W. Carlson, a member of the defense fund's board and vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute. "But ultimately, if it's necessary, I would hope the president would pardon him."

One of the 11 jurors who voted unanimously to convict Mr. Libby said in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC today that she would favor a pardon. The juror, Ann Redington, explained her thinking by saying that "it kind of bothers me" that no one was charged with the crime initially under investigation ?- exposing the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer ?- and that Mr. Libby "got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed."

The pardon speculation, political and financial, is inspired in part by the example set by President Bush's father, who shortly before leaving office pardoned six officials charged in the Iran-contra scandal, which involved the funneling money to the Nicaraguan Contras from the proceeds of arms sales to Iran. Those pardoned included Caspar W. Weinberger, President Ronald Reagan's secretary of defense, and Elliott Abrams, who currently serves as a senior official on the National Security Council.

In a Dec. 24, 1992, proclamation granting the six men clemency, the elder President George Bush offered a three-page justification that includes assertions already being echoed by proponents of a pardon for Mr. Libby.

"First, the common denominator of their motivation ?- whether their actions were right or wrong ?- was patriotism," the president wrote. "Second, they did not profit or seek to profit from their conduct. Third, each has a record of long and distinguished service to this country."

Finally, the proclamation said, the men "have already paid a price ?- in depleted savings, lost careers, anguished families ?- grossly disproportionate to any misdeeds or errors of judgment they may have committed."

Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent prosecutor in the Iran-contra cases, vehemently denounced the pardons at the time, saying they "undermined the principal that no an is above the law."

President Bill Clinton set off his own political furor by granting a pardon hours before leaving office on Jan. 20, 2001 to Marc Rich, the fugitive metals trader whose former wife, Denise Rich, was a major Clinton fundraiser.

By chance, Mr. Libby represented Mr. Rich as an attorney for years before joining Mr. Cheney's staff in 2000, and colleagues have said his legal analysis helped lay the groundwork for that pardon. When Republicans attacked Mr. Clinton's pardon of Mr. Rich, Democrats in Congress who were trying to blunt the criticism summoned Mr. Libby, why by then was already serving in the current Bush administration, to testify about his representation of Mr. Rich.

Now we learn Denis Collins, the very talkative juror that was almost gleeful about the verdict, was a former newspaper reporter for the Washington Post, that worked with Bob Woodward, and on top of that he was a former neighbor of Tim Russert. Both of those men were key figures in this case. How in the world did this guy not get kicked off the jury, and does anyone believe he was not a tainted juror before he heard the case?

Denis Collins revealed all that information in the jury selection process. The defense kept him on the jury. Are you accusing the defense lawyers of sabotaging the case against Libby while making sure there was no basis for appeal? You can't appeal about juror you kept on the case unless he lied to get on the jury. There is no evidence that Collins did that. Even Collins said he was suprised he was kept as a juror.

More bluster from you without facts okie.

Joe Wilson, noting Bush's sympathy for Libby and his family, said that it is too bad he had no sympathy for his wife, whose career was ruined, and who was endangered, by Libby and his fellow [treasonous bastards].

An interesting theory is that the real target in the outing was Brewster-Jennings, a product of probably the most important directorate in the CIA. The cover company monitored nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The theory is that Cheney didn't want the pissant CIA meddling in Middle East affairs, possibly impacting the administration's actions there.

I am not accusing the defense team of anything, except possibly bad judgement. But maybe it was good judgement if the guy falsely presented himself, and they can now show evidence of such? Did Collins claim he was not prejudiced already before the trial started? Perhaps he did lie? Seems fairly possible to me. I find it almost unbelievable that such a guy could have been un-prejudiced relative to this case, given his career and who he knew. Nothing about this silly case would surprise me anymore. I am sure the defense team is looking at all of this with a fine tooth comb. Unfortunately, don't look for them to get any breaks from the court.

I guess I should no longer be surprised at what you are willing to make up or ignore to promote your preconceived notions.

Thursday, March 08, 2007
Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity
Committee Will Hold Hearing on Disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's Identity

Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee will receive testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred. The hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 16.

In addition, the Committee today sent a letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald commending him for his investigation and requesting a meeting to discuss testimony by Mr. Fitzgerald before the Committee.

Cycloptichorn

Alice oozes through the looking glass... into Washingtonland
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17492067/

If the president can overrule our legal system by his/her pardons, why even waste the time and money to charge anybody working for the party? Let's turn the process backward, and let the president pardon the criminal before any court proceedings, and deny pardons before any president leaves office.

One of the jurors is already advocating a pardon:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/08/america/web-0308libby.php

One of the 11 jurors who convicted Libby said in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday that she would favor a pardon. The juror, Ann Redington, explained her thinking by saying "it kind of bothers me" that no one was charged with the alleged crime initially under investigation ?- exposing the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer ?- and that Libby "got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed."

Well, do tell, what a surprise. Key words, "actual crime" and "supposedly committed." One juror is finally starting to catch on. Where was the crime, and was it committed? Nobody knows. Apparently not even Fitzgerald. The judge said he didn't know. Who do we ask now?

Summary. A man is convicted, for which the jury thought he was the wrong man on trial, for a crime that apparently did not happen. And now the prosecutor is going back to his day job. Case closed. After years on the job accomplishing great things. Great job, Fitz.

Let me get this straight okie. You are arguing that perjury and obstruction are meaningless charges unless there is an underlying crime that is also charged? Is that correct? So anyone that charges someone with perjury and obstruction without that underlying crime is wasting money and time? Is that also correct?

No, not totally meaningless, but certainly he could spend his time more usefully. I would say if a prosecutor convicts someone for lying about a burglary, and it turns out the burglary did not occur, and the prosecutor knew no burglary ocurred before the perjury trial, the case is not worth bringing.

So, you are arguing that as long as somone KNOWS there was no underlying crime then they shouldn't waste their time with perjury charges? Is that your statement?

Be careful, okie, he's trapping you.

Joe(try not to mention Monica)Nation

I am certainly trying to understand how someone can lie about a burglary that wasn't committed and not be convicted of a crime? I know if I went to my police station and reported a burglary and it turns out I lied they would charge me with a crime. I believe I left a similar question concerning lying about a murder that didn't occur earlier in this thread.



but trapping Joe(Be careful of that really big hole with the spikes in it you can't miss)Nation?

Hunting flies with a howitzer might be a better description. They stare right at it but don't see the danger.

I knew where he was headed a couple of posts ago. The difference is there were underlying crimes with Whitewater, and in fact several people were convicted, including the former governor of Arkansas. The difference is even if plea bargains occurred in that case, there was alot of underlying corruption that spurred the eventual perjury of Clinton.

The difference in this case is the fact that Plame was not a covert agent. And the law covering covert agents was not broken. Even the person that originally helped write the law said it never even came close. This whole affair does not amount to a hill of beans, except politics, that is all it amounts to. Its all about Joe Wilson and his politics.

Victoria Toensing helped write the law that forms the basis of this whole investigation, and this what she has to say about it:

Being one of the key people to help draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Toensing has been retained by a number of media organizations to give commentary on the Plame Affair. In March 2005 Toensing authored an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, two journalists who were subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame investigation for refusing to reveal information obtained from confidential sources. In the brief, she argued that "there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Protection Act in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper."[citation needed] She also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the article (by Robert Novak) that revealed her status as a CIA employee

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

LOL.. I love it okie. Quite the tale there that has nothing to do with facts.

What the hell did Paula Jones have to do with Whitewater? NOTHING.. It was a civil suit. The perjury ended up not being related to WW. Starr had to go to the AG and the judges to get the perjury investigation authorized since it was not part of WW.

Secondly, there were ZERO convictions for Whitewater. That would be ZERO. Starr convicted some people but none of the convictions were directly related to WW. In fact, using your argument, those people shouldn't have been charged at all.

As for Toensing's silly argument that it isn't secret if other governments know, then I guess the NYTimes didn't reveal anything secret when they talked about the CIA prisons. After all, several Eastern Eurpean nations were well aware of those CIA prisons.