Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Libby's hearing to stay out of jail isn't going well - for Libby.

When asked about the 12 law professor Amicus Brief,

Quote:

Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish. [Reggie pissed]

Ouch

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walton is known for his belief that criminals need to pay the piker. He ain't gonna change just because the Bush-cabal puts pressure on him.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Remind me again why Sandy Burgler isn't in jail?

He pleaded guilty and copped a plea. Nothing he did endangered the country. That is not true for the WH gang that outed a CIA spy, and then lied and obstructed.

BTW, it is not disputed that Libby leaked Plame's ID to Matt Cooper, and why he was not held accountable is beyond me.

Fitz said that Rove did not commit perjury, although the FBI disagrees.

So hiding the facts of what the Clinton administration actually did from the 911 commission, so that a false conclusion and recommendations were drawn up by the commission does not endanger the country? I beg to differ, Advocate.

0 Replies

My understanding is that the documents were duplicates, with the originals available to the Commission.

Do you really feel that it was inconsequential that the WH outed a CIA spy for political reasons?

0 Replies

AP reports:

A federal judge said Thursday he will not delay a 2 1/2-year prison sentence for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a ruling that could send the former White House aide to prison within weeks.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton's decision will send Libby's attorneys rushing to an appeals court to block the sentence and could force President Bush to consider calls from Libby's supporters to pardon the former aide.

No date was set for Libby to report to prison but it's expected to be within six to eight weeks. That will be left up to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, which will also select a facility.

---

Exactly as predicted.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yup!

0 Replies

Bush will grant the pardon. He has never been able to resist doing the wrong thing.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

My understanding is that the documents were duplicates, with the originals available to the Commission.

Do you really feel that it was inconsequential that the WH outed a CIA spy for political reasons?

Armitage outed Plame. Get your facts straight.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:
My understanding is that the documents were duplicates, with the originals available to the Commission.

Do you really feel that it was inconsequential that the WH outed a CIA spy for political reasons?

Armitage outed Plame. Get your facts straight.

Both Libby AND Armitage outed Plame. Perhaps you should examine your set of facts, friend.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Armitage first, so if Libby had never said a thing, it would never have made a difference. And neither one has been established as a crime, cyclops, so again, get your facts straight. So far, nobody has been accused of a crime under the law. And how about Harlow, he blabbed as well, and he worked for the CIA. Did he commit a crime?

This is getting tiring to remind you of the same facts over and over, and over.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Armitage first, so if Libby had never said a thing, it would never have made a difference. And neither one has been established as a crime, cyclops, so again, get your facts straight. So far, nobody has been accused of a crime under the law. And how about Harlow, he blabbed as well, and he worked for the CIA. Did he commit a crime?

This is getting tiring to remind you of the same facts over and over, and over.

They aren't facts, not even close.

Quote:

Armitage first, so if Libby had never said a thing, it would never have made a difference.

You're just wrong. Information which is classified, which includes the identity of covert agents, isn't 'insta-declassified' just because someone illegally reveals that information. It is still classified and still a crime to reveal. The law is quite clear on this.

Quote:

And neither one has been established as a crime, cyclops, so again, get your facts straight.

Well, you said:

Quote:

Armitage outed Plame. Get your facts straight.

Armitage didn't talk to more people about her identity than Libby did, yet you are confident in saying 'Armitage outed Plame.' When I point out that they did basically the same thing, except Libby to a greater extent, you say that neither one has been established as a crime.

But I was only using the same terminology that you did, so I'm not sure where your objection comes from in this case.

Quote:

So far, nobody has been accused of a crime under the law.

Wrong again. Scooter Libby has not only been accused, but convicted of multiple crimes under the law for his involvement with this case.

Quote:

And how about Harlow, he blabbed as well, and he worked for the CIA. Did he commit a crime?

It is possible.

Really, please. There are legitimate points for argument in this case, but none of the ones you've listed are amongst that group.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:
My understanding is that the documents were duplicates, with the originals available to the Commission.

Do you really feel that it was inconsequential that the WH outed a CIA spy for political reasons?

Armitage outed Plame. Get your facts straight.

Rove corroborated what Armitage said to Novak. (Thus, Rove (of the WH) is equally guilty. Moreover, Libby leaked the info to Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, who had the decency not to publish this info. It was still a crime what Libby did.

0 Replies

You are both full of it. For this to be a crime, as determined under the law, the person revealing the identity of a covert agent must have intent, or be aware of the status. This has never been established, so no original crime has ever been established. Far far from it.

Besides, under your definition of this being a crime, Harlow of the CIA would also need to be prosecuted.

And Advocate, there is no good indication that the documents stolen by Berger were all duplicates, just claims by his defenders, and in fact it defies logic that he would do what he did just to get rid of duplicates.

0 Replies

okie, You're the one "full of it." To expose a CIA agent with intent or no intent is wrong. Get your head out of your arse.

0 Replies

In any event, it is pretty clear that there was intent. The matter of the Wilsons received considerable discussion within the administration, and Cheney essentially issued instructions in notations he made on a newspaper. How can anyone doubt that Armitage, Libby and Rove intended to make their damaging statements?

0 Replies

Of course, there was intent, they were trying to smear the Wilsons.

0 Replies

And Wilson was smearing the administration. He started the whole thing. Now he can go sell the movie rights and write books. I hope he is happy, the dud.

0 Replies

Logic anyone? Without the smear against the Wilsons, there wouldn't be any story to sell. Cheney was the one who requested somebody check out the yellow cake story. The CIA sent Wilson, because he was ambassador and had prior connections to Niger as a request by the CIA the first time. This was the second request by the CIA.

0 Replies

BTW, Wilson did not "smear" the administration. He only said there was no attempt by Saddam to purchase yellow cake. Cheney and Rove didn't want to hear that, so they smeared Wilson. Are you up to date yet? We later learned that the documents they had were forgeries. Another screw up by the "administration" for using it to support their claim that Saddam was in the process to build nuclear weapons.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And Wilson was smearing the administration. He started the whole thing. Now he can go sell the movie rights and write books. I hope he is happy, the dud.

damned right! that joe wilson fella' was walking around spreading outright and vicous truth about what he learned during his expenses paid lovely visit to the african hell-hole called niger.

the bastard!

how dare he speak the truth!

undoubtedly, truth has a liberal bias, as does objective reality, apparently.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know