Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

That's why the jury convicted him and the judge threw the book at him because people see it for what it is.

a case inextricably linked to the flawed intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and an administration effort to discredit a critic that ultimately exposed a C.I.A. officer. The Democrats who control Congress would be none too pleased, either.

A decision not to pardon Mr. Libby would further alienate members of Mr. Bush's traditional base of support in the conservative movement, a group already angry about his proposed immigration policy, his administration's spending and his approach to Iran.

So far, Mr. Bush seems to be willing to take that chance, saying he will not intervene until Mr. Libby's legal team has exhausted its avenues of appeal.

Already, major conservative and neoconservative organizations, magazines and Web sites are expressing vexation that Mr. Bush has not granted clemency to Mr. Libby, who they say was unfairly railroaded for an initial leak that has now been traced to Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state.

"I don't understand it," said David Frum, a former speech writer for Mr. Bush who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group with close ties to the White House. "A lot of people in the conservative world are weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness here."

A conservative with close ties to the administration, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, put it another way: "Letting Scooter go to jail would be a politically irrational symbol to the last chunk of the 29 percent upon which he stands," a reference to the low percentage of Americans who tell pollsters they support Mr. Bush.

But Mr. Bush has never been very eager to grant pardons, and in fact is among the stingiest presidents in history, said P. S. Ruckman Jr., a political science professor who studies pardons at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill. Mr. Bush took office as his predecessor, Bill Clinton, was facing harsh scrutiny for granting a pardon to Marc Rich, whose former wife, Denise, had donated heavily to Mr. Clinton's presidential library.

A former senior administration official with his own ties to the case said Mr. Libby had failed to meet the general standard for a pardon by not showing contrition or serving any time. This official also noted that Mr. Libby had also been found guilty of lying to investigators, the same offense that led to the impeachment of Mr. Clinton.

The former official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the president, said: "It would show a deep disregard for the rule of law if he was to do it right now, when there has been no remorse shown by a convicted felon and no time has been served. How's this going to fit in his long-term legacy?"

I'm not defending anyone,just wondering what the threshhold is that makes lying to a grand jury a crime or not.

Gee, let's start with something simple like an "indictment". Don't you think that would be a good point to judge.

We won't bother with the weighty measure of "conviction" yet. Or the harder to judge "rises to the level of perjury."

Libby - prosecutor found enough evidence to charge the crime. Jury found enough evidence to convict of the crime.
Clinton - prosecutor declined to charge the crime because of lack of convictable evidence.

I don't know mm. I see a big difference. Perhaps you can tell us how they are the same in your mind.

MM, Scooter also obstructed justice by lying to the FBI.

But I think Bush will pardon him. After all, Libby got what his boss deserved.

I don't think a Bush pardon will resonate that much, especially with another year and a half to go in his presidency. Moreover, people expect very little of Bush, ethically or otherwise, so people will be very accepting of the pardon.

John Kass

GOP joins in mockery of rule of law


Published June 7, 2007


Remember when the rule of law was important to Republicans?

Years before Scooter Libby was sentenced to prison, long before unannounced Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson was Libby's champion on the right. Republicans cared very much about the rule of law and perjury and obstruction of justice back then.

A few years ago, the priapic Democratic president could have made a fortune charging Republicans a quarter every time they used those three words. He kept the rule of law in business, when he wasn't on the phone in the Oval Office, talking to a congressman about sending American troops to the Balkans, while otherwise engaged with an intern under his desk.

It was just sex, hissed the Democrats. It's the rule of law, hissed the Republicans.

Now Republicans want a pardon for Libby, the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in the investigation of the Bush administration's leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer whose husband had the wrong politics on the Iraq war.

Republicans make convoluted arguments about who leaked what first. And Democrats insist he is Cheney's fall guy. I guess it all depends on what the definition of the rule of law is.

"What do you expect?" said my wife at breakfast. She's a teacher and instructs our twin boys about the right and wrong of things. "They're politicians. They're acting like politicians. What do you expect from politicians?"

What do I expect from politicians? Not much. I would like to expect that politicians wouldn't keep robbing us blind with high taxes even though every time a tax is raised a liberal gets his wings. And I'd expect them to put the nation's security and that of our allies above their own individual political ambitions. It is depressing to see the American political class bolting away from Iraq, playing to American fear and exhaustion rather than leading, just as Iran gets ready to hoist the nuclear spear.

The outed and now former CIA officer is Valerie Plame, whose husband, Joseph Wilson, was sent to Niger to determine if Iraq had bought nuclear material. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not bought the material. So concerned about her security after her name was published in a newspaper column, she posed on the cover of Vanity Fair with Jackie O sunglasses and with Wilson, the two of them in a convertible, stylish victims.

It was ridiculous and cynical. So I'm not championing Plame or Wilson here, or operatives who use them as symbols to cudgel President Bush. Wilson and Plame are as partisan as partisan can be. And as such they were transformed from human beings into objects of utility, tools for Democratic craftsmen.

But the Republicans also are partisan, and they proved it the other night at their presidential debate in New Hampshire. The candidates were asked: If elected, would you pardon Libby?

Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas -- two candidates without a real shot at the nomination -- said no, they wouldn't pardon him.

But the others hedged and danced around it, trying not to step in Fred Thompson's footprints. He's the actor who plays a law-and-order prosecutor on TV, and a former U.S. senator who is the unannounced 800-pound gorilla among Republican candidates. He's a Libby champion, and the others must figure they can't give Thompson all that room on the right.

So former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ripped on the sentence, calling it excessive, hinting at a pardon. "I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of pardon because this is excessive punishment," said Giuliani, stepping on Thompson's toes.

Arizona Sen. John McCain dodged it, saying he'd withhold judgment until after the appeal.

The famous varmint hunter, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, implied he'd pardon Libby and he personally attacked the special prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, an attack that will win Romney points among the GOP power brokers in the Illinois Combine now under federal investigation.

"In this case, you have a prosecutor who clearly abused prosecutorial discretion by going after somebody when he already knew that the source of the leak was [former State Department official] Richard Armitage," Romney said. "He'd been told that, so he went on a political vendetta."

Another expression of partisan bitterness came from Republican and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson. "Bill Clinton committed perjury at a grand jury, lost his law license. Scooter Libby got 30 months. To me, it's not fair at all."

Perhaps not. But Libby was convicted of his crimes. And the rule of law should be important to everyone, particularly to those who presume to lead us.

You take an oath. You give your word. It is not only your own word, but ours too, if you're in leadership over us.

If the rule of law was good enough for Republicans then and if it's good enough for Democrats now, it should be good enough for all of them, and all of us, all the time.
--Chicago Tribune

Advocate, That's how far down the toilet our members of government has fallen. I do not believe we can ever achieve anything resembling ethics and representative government in our country we once had before Bush (although I'm aware there has been some before Bush) - at least not in my lifetime. Another Bush legacy for the historians.

I am not talking about Libby being guilty or not.
A jury found him guilty,after seeing the evidence,and since I wasnt on the jury I will go along with their decision.

My whole point is that Libby lied to the GJ to hide something that has never been declared a crime (at least nobody has been charged).

Now,Clinton lied to the GJ to try and impede the investigation into his relationship with Monica.

I will go on record AGAIN and say that the investigation into his actions was stupid and wasteful,but what I wanna know is if lying to the GJ is a crime,then why wasnt it a crime when Bill did it.

After all,lying to the GJ is still lying,no matter how major or minor the charge is.

So,why was one illegal and one wasnt?
Both times people lied to the GJ to impede an investigation.

Let's see: an individual steals a loaf of bread and gets one year in prison, and the white collar crook that steals millions from investors gets five years. Example two: one defendant lies about having sex, and the jury doesn't charge him with any "crime." The second defendant lies about the exposure of a CIA agent. The first defendant goes free, because there was no substantive crime that harmed anyone or threatened the life of anyone. The second defendant gets 30 months in prison, because the judge finds he lied about an investigation into the leak of a CIA agent.

Some people still wants to equate one loaf of bread with millions of dollars, and lies about sex to the exposure of a CIA agent that has consequences for the active agent and those she came in contact with during her foreign service while working under cover. Some people will never "get it." Can't fix stupid.

Please note that his relationship with Monica was not a crime. Two consenting adults (and Monica has never said anything about any lack of consent on her part.) can fondle each other to their heart's content.

Why was this relationship being investigated? To bring proof to the Paula Jones lawsuit that William Jefferson Clinton was an inveterate horndog and probably did wave his wiener at Ms Jones at some point (along with a couple of thousand other (uncomplaining) females around the whole of the US.



It was.

He lost his license to practice law in the Great State of Arkansas because of it. And there was the little matter of those other horndogs in the US Congress voting to impeach him over it. (that's called an indictment.) Only the cooler heads in the US Senate said "Oh, for crying out loud. If this tittie kissing and blowjob is all that this lying involves then it's not an offense the rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Let's go back to work."

And they did.

Joe(It was the rule of law.)Nation

Which impeded the investigation and Libby was charged with a crime based on the evidence.
So you say but the prosecutor found there to not be enough evidence to charge this crime. Perhaps Clinton didn't really lie. Certainly he didn't clearly commit a crime of perjury since there was no prosecution and you can't show beyond reasonable doubt what this supposed lie was. You can claim it is a lie but anyone can claim something is a lie. You have to prove it is clearly untrue and the person saying it knew it to be untrue. Such was shown to be the case with Libby.
Yes, you keep saying that and the facts still contradict you. Libby was found guilty. Clinton was never charged.
Yeah and show the Clinton lie and how it meets the standards of perjury if you want to compare the two. Without meeting those standards there is NO comparison. You are doing nothing but spouting partisan nonsense since you can't even begin to back up your claims with any facts. Even the prosecutor and the Senate realized there was nothing to this claim.
One was illegal because it met the standards of a crime. the other one didn't meet those standards and there is doubt as to even if it was a lie. But don't let things like facts get in the way of demanding that they be the same. They aren't. They never will be. They can't be because of the simple facts that you refuse to admit.

Joe(good grasp of Clinton investigation)Nation, I'm afraid the level heads we had back about 7-8 years ago no longer exist in DC today. The same congressmen who made every effort to impeach Clinton has been less than consistent with Libby's case. All hypocrites. I don't even trust most of the democrats who continue to bend to the demands of Bush without much fight. They are all playing politics at the cost of lives.

I can hear Scooter emulating the late, great, Leona Helmsley: obeying the law is for the little people, not for wealthy, powerful men like me.

I hear that Bush is considering a two-fer: pardons for both Scooter and Paris.

Karl Rove lied to the Grand Jury. In fact, jurors were surprised that he wasn't indicted. Why? Obviously, Fitz didn't think the deception met the very high burden of perjury.

From hearing Murray Waas's interview on Democracy Now, it sounds to me that Cheney may have suborned perjury when he met with Libby just before Libby smeared Plame and Wilson. If that is the case, he could very possibly "turn states evidence" to avoid jail.

Stay tuned.

BTW did Tico ever admit that he wrong about Plame not being covert.?

I'll give you three guesses.

These guys will never give up their position; it doesn't matter how much evidence comes out.

Cycloptichorn

That's for dang sure!

I like this. BTW, The Sopranos last episode is on Sunday night. I think that Tony will rat on his whole crew and go under the witness protection program.

I work in the cable biz, according to waht I have been told, the ending will shock everyone. Of course, that could be hype.

When and if the original leaker, Armitage, is charged with a crime in this case, then this will amount to a hill of beans. Otherwise, this is nothing more than more bungling by the CIA to send a partisan Joe Wilson to go to Niger to find out nothing that was not already known and then go to blabbing to the world about something he knew nothing about, or should have known nothing about, unless of course his wife was illegally divulging national security information to him. To summarize, this case is much ado about nothing, and frankly I am tired of hearing about it. A complete waste of taxpayers money. The prosecutor got lost in the forest and forgot which tree he was even looking for. This is all confirmed by reading the following summary. I recommend a pardon for Libby, so we can quit wasting time on this fiasco.

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