Notable:
"The defense might have been better off taking on Mr. Fitzgerald for criminalizing political differences.
For that, in essence, is what this case is really all about. We learned long ago--and Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the start of his probe in 2003--that Mr. Libby was not the source of the leak to columnist Robert Novak that started all this. Mr. Libby thus had no real motive to cover up this non-crime. What he did have strong cause to do was rebut the lies that Mr. Wilson was telling about the Administration and Mr. Cheney--lies confirmed as lies by a bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004."
"
Posts
15 comments:
Several things bother me about this verdict.
The interview with the juror yesterday (a journalist, no less...on a political-trial jury!)seemed to indicate that the jury thought they had a mission to punish somebody. They said they were sympathetic to Libby, and wondered "Where's Rove, where's the other guys?" So, given that Libby was the only screwee offered to them by the prosecutor, they proceeded to screw Libby as a message to the rest of the Administration. That's not justice, that's a political statement.
Also, the juror's comments indicated that they misunderstood the facts of the case; they apparently thought they were finding someone guilty for leaking Plame's identity, even though that's NOT what the trial was about. The prosecutor succeeded in misleading them in a classic "jury nullification" situation.
This verdict had as much relevance to the truth as the OJ verdict.
"This verdict had as much relevance to the truth as the OJ verdict."
Most likely it will be overturned on appeal. If not, odds are pretty good he gets a new trial.
The "Get Rove/Cheney/Bush" agenda is NEVER going to be over for these people.
I agree, the appeal process may well conclude with a very different outcome. This will be an interesting case to watch as it winds it's way through the system.
Of course, that will not assuage those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome, they judged Libby/Cheney/Rove/Bush guilty years ago!
Taranto, as usual, gets it right on the Libby case.
Excerpt:
"But it remains a travesty that Libby was ever prosecuted to begin with.
This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:
* On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.
* Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.
* Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.
* No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard Armitage at the State Department.
Libby stands convicted of lying in the course of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle--but that investigation was undertaken on the basis of a tissue of lies. When Fitzgerald began the case, in 2003, no one had committed any crime in connection with the kerfuffle, and that was fairly easy to ascertain, given that Plame was not a covert agent and Armitage had already owned up to the so-called leak. Fitzgerald looks like an overzealous prosecutor, one who was more interested in getting a scalp than in getting to the truth of the matter."
Libby lied under oath to the grand jury.
Didnt you goofs want Clinton executed, opps, I mean impeached and removed for same? Although, his lie was over a personal, civil matter, Libbys lie ultimately is over going to war with false intell. Said war so far has killed 3100+ Americans, wounded over 25000 US soldiers, and killed somewhere between 100,000 and 655,000 Iraqis. The 500 billion dollars might also be consider as a loss, as well as the estimates by some economists that the ultimate cost of the Iraq war could be 2 trillion.
You can spin all you want, but be honest, for once? (naw, that wont happen)
Wilson never said his wife did not reccomend him.
Larry Johnson, (former CIA agent from same training class as Plame) and security and intell consultant now in DC, has always maintained that she was covered under the Intell act. Regardless
THE JUDGE IN THE LIBBY CASE MADE THE POINT THAT HER POSITION WITH THE CIA IS CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFO.
All the players from the White House involved in this signed security agreements on taking the job that they will not improperly release classified info under pain of trial and imprisonment. Scooter did so. Whether Armitage did so first is immaterial.. in intell, what Scooter did would be looked at as confirming the earlier info, thus STILL a security breach.
Plame's job at the CIA when all this happened was overseeing WMD intell for Iraq and Iran.
So Cheney/Armitage/Scooter outed the person trying to keep Iran from getting nukes. Which today, the Administration is threatening war with Iran if they get try to get nukes. Ironic, eh?
On top of this, the outing of Plame also outed the CIA cover company Brewster/Jennings. The CIA spends millions setting up these dummy companies so they can use them for NOC agent activities, so that went down the drain.
It also possibly compromised any foreign agents Palame recruited while she was was a NOC agent with Brewster Jennings. As well as the agents recruited by any CIA agents working under cover with Brewster Jennings. We wont know for 30 years or more because the CIA damage assesment report, which they do in security breechs like this one, is classified. So, very possibly people who were helping the US intell effort have probably been imprisoned, tortured, or killed by their countries security agencies. (Note, even 2nd world and 3rd World intell agencies at least read the Wash Post and NYTimes.)
So what they did is not wrong because??
The supposed "non partisan" senate panel report which calls Joe Wilson a liar was not non partisan, the parts of the report attacking Wilson were attached opinions by only Republican members of the panel trying to cover the Administrations ass.
This is only going to be the beginning for this administration. If the House and Senate only investigate 10 % of the crap the Administraion has pulled in the last 6 years of no oversight by a Republican Congress, we will probably be trying Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the other neocons for war crimes about the time of the 08 election. Nancy Peolsi will be president. Maybe she will even run and get reelected in 08!!
You may now beging scraping yourselves off the ceiling.
Jack,
Judge Walton made no such finding.
And please read what the WaPo had to say today.
The Verdict
Jack, your comments have so many lies in it that you could be indicted and convicted as well. There are too many to rebute, but:
1) Libby was not the person who leaked Plame's indentity. Armatage did, and the prosecutor knew that before he was appointed. He also knew it when he sent Judith Miller to jail for three months for not revealing her source. Libby was tried for perjury in a case that should never have been tried.
2) This mess started because Wilson said that Cheyney sent him to Niger to get intel. That was a lie, and the Senate said it was. Wilson is a lier.
3) If Plame had been a covert agent, then the prosecutor was remiss in not prosecuting Armatage who leaked it. In fact, many people knew that she worked at the CIA. If she had been covert, the prosecutor would have been prosecuting people for the leak, not perjury. Perjury on a matter that was not a crime was all that he had. This prosecutor was running a "gotcha" investigation. Libby should have gone to the grand jury and said that he didn't remember to every question. He would have never been on trial. Fitzgerald is no better than Mike Nifong.
4) With this jury, the prosecutor easily got a conviction. They jury would have found anyone from the Bush Administration guilty if they had been charged. A jury member coming out and making the statement wanting to know where the other members of the Administration were was telling about the mind set of this jury. They wanted to punish some and every one for a crime, and they onlly had poor Libby to punish.
5) I wish that people like you would stop talking about getting Bush and Cheyney for war crimes, and just go for it. It's getting mighty old. If you'be got the proof, go for the conviction. Otherwise, shut-up.
Jack, your claim of "false intell" is opinion, not fact. You're entitled to your opinion, though, no matter how swayed you may be by the mainstream media and the Bush-haters out there.
Intelligence information is a funny animal. It can be interpreted in many ways, and a government agency is morally bound to act as if the worst case scenario will occur. It's more "based on what we know this or that is LIKELY to happen" rather than "based on what we know this WILL happen."
Failure to act on credible intelligence might endanger the citizens the government is legally and morally bound to protect. This holds true for the local police basing their actions on intelligence to protect the local citizens as well as the federal government doing the same to protect U.S. citizens.
Think of it this way: You're a policeman and you stop a car. The driver jumps out and points a gun at a citizen standing next to you on the sidewalk. Based on what you know (intel) you believe a life is in danger and you take appropriate action. Later you find out that the suspect's gun, though realistic, is a toy. Should you be prosecuted and thrown in prison because you relied on "faulty intel??" No, you assessed the intelligence available to you and made a decision intended to protect life.
Intel is rarely an indisputable fact, it's more an educated prediction of what will happen in the future given the information you have today. A government that fails to act on what it perceives as a threat to it's citizens is not fulfilling the obligation we demand of it.
Let's all sing the chorus to jack's (and the Usual Suspects') theme song when it comes to the Plame Game:
"You go back jack, do it again.
Wheel turnin round and round.
You go back jack do it again...."
And indeed, they keep going BACK, and BACK, and BACK......when will they get it through their thick heads that they will NEVER get this nonsense to turn out like they want?
Pitiful.
Oh, how well you parrot the right wing spin machine, conservative talking points, and Faux News.
Noticed not one of you addressed the outing of Brewster Jennings. No one addressed the fact that the jury was selected with the defense being able to challenge, to a certain extent, potential jurors that they think are prejudiced.
I wonder if the jury had found Scooter innocent, you would be trashing them like you are now when they decided against your prejudices.
You think I depend on "mainstream media". No, I depend on former Administraion appointees, like Richard Clarke (who served at the pleasure of the Ford, Reagan, and Bush I and II admins}, Generals Zinni and Hoar, who were Centcom cincs, General Odom, head of the NSA during the Reagan Administration, the wisdom of COL David Hackworth (now deceased), probably the most decorated infantry soldier of this century, The insight of Joe Galloway, the only civilian awarded the Bronze Star w/V for helping wounded Americans under fire at LZ X Ray in the Ia Drang Valley. How's this for a quote about him:
"Joe Galloway is the finest combat correspondent of our generation---a soldier's reporter and a soldier's friend."
-Gen. (ret.) H. Norman Schwarzkopf
If you saw the movie "We were Soldiers,' that was written by Joe Galloway and General Hal Moore, commander at LZ X Ray.
Besides accounts from General Wesley Clarke, Both former SecTreasury of Bush II, and Richard Clarke, my most informed source for the "Stovepiping" of intell to support the warmongers who wanted to go after Iraq is from retired LTC Karen Kwiatkowski, check out her articles on lewrockwell.com, a LIBERTARIAN blog. I think she puts it best in this opening to her article, "The War Pimp" :
The DoD Inspector General, after over fourteen months of diligent and surely difficult investigation, has concluded that the Office of Special Plans, and Doug Feith as Under Secretary for Policy,
…developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence committee and… presented these to senior decision makers.
I’m happy to say it didn’t take me fourteen months to figure that out. I’m happy to say that it didn’t take most of us who worked in the Under Secretariat for Defense Policy, Near East and South Asia directorate fourteen months to figure it out. We saw the CIA and DIA intelligence, we understood the region, and we watched Doug Feith, Abe Shulsky, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Ahmad Chalabi, Bill Luti and a handful of others in and around the upper echelons of the Pentagon create a preferred alternate universe, and then foist it on an unsuspecting country.
We knew Scooter before the world did. "
from http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski174.html
I also depend on the opinion of my older brother, who had 2 tours in Vietnam, was wounded 5 times, and earned the Silver Star, Bronze Star w/V, and Soldiers Medal. Also got a masters in International Relations from U.Maryland. Both a Soldier and a scholar. Has always voted Republican .. until 2004 (voted for the Libertarian then)
And from my own experience being a history honors major and ROTC scholarship student who served 5 years active duty, most as a company grade officer in a mech infantry battalion. And someone that has read military and diplomatic histories my entire life. Also had a short stint as a legal assistant, and did investigations and served on a Court Martial while in the Army
So on the one hand, I depend on military experts whose predictions about the problems of attacking Iraq have, unfortuneately, come true. Many of them have critzized the cherry picking of intell the Bushie neocons like Feith did to try to justify Iraq.
And you believe the spin machine which has gotton most everything about Iraq wrong.
Be honest, who was right about the wisdom of attacking Iraq, the above experts, or the administration shills who claimed we would be greeted with flowers and candy, that the Iraqi oil would pay for everything, and NO WAY would the war cost billions, and disregarded General Shinseki when he said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. (the CENTCOM OPLAN before Rummy messed it up called for at least 350,000)
As a hard headed former infantry officer, I have to live in the real world. How do you guys manage to live in a talking points and spin fantasy world?
That is why I agree with the jury, who, after all, saw all the evidence over a months long trial, and spent over 10 days to come to their decision.
Scooter is guilty. Get that thru your thick skulls.
Very convenient, Jack. You find those whose opinions mirror yours and point to them as vindication for your own opinions.
If you only listen to those with whom you agree then you're right all the time, correct?
Nice try.
Jack:
"Oh, how well you parrot the right wing spin machine, conservative talking points, and Faux News. "
SSDD.
To describe your little babblefest as amateurish would be generous. "Childish" would be more accurate. "Irrelevant" would also apply.
Try again.
You guys are so pathetic.
I point out that regardless of whether Plame was a covert agent under the specific act, her postion and work at the CIA were secret, thus those that leaked her name violated their security oaths.
I point out that regardless of Plames status, Outing Plame outed the CIA front Company, Brewster Jennings.
The response from you guys?
(((((( crickets ))))))))))))
Just the usual kill the messenger crap. Jack's a liar, Jack is childish, Jack dosent get it...
BTW, Several of you keep saying that Wilson said that Cheney had sent him to Niger.But Wilson said no such thing. In his New York Times piece, Wilson wrote only that he had been "informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.'' That was true. (Thanks to EJ Dionne for pointing this out)
The other point you refuse to speak of is the supposed Conservative love of the rule of law. After all, that's what you prated on when you went after Clinton. Yet, when a dully selected jury debates for 10 days and finds Libby guilty, you guys cry foul and want him pardoned. And trash the Jury. The prosecutor, the judge, etc.
Libby was responsible for his bad behavior, and was found guilty of of said behavior.
Better be ready for other persons of this administration being held responsible for their actions.
Oh, yeah thats right.. this administration is never responsible for their mistakes, are they? Blame it on anyone else.
And trash the messenger, witness the personal attacks on me. Nothing to back them up, just an opinion.
Prove me wrong. Address Brewster Jennings. Go back and read the original Wilson op/ed in the NYTimes, and the original Novak column. Then come back with some logical fact statements, not just insults.
And for jaycee,
I formed the opinions about Iraq in 2002 and 2003, based on my judgement and the opinions of those I cited previously.
Unfortunately for our country, our opinions proved to be right. I wish everything had gone as Cheney et al promised, but, THEY WERE WRONG.
Tell me jaycee, isnt it smart to pay attention to those who prove to be right, rather than those who have been wrong time after time for the last 5 years?
Try, for once, using a little logic and less ideology
Jack, opinions are just that, OPINIONS. They are neither right nor wrong, they're just someone's feelings and thoughts on any given subject.
Just because someone else has the same opinion as you does not make it a FACT. Even if that *someone* is famous, a news anchor, or a politician.
You need to learn the difference between *opinion* and *fact* or you'll go through life in denial about what's real and what isn't.
One must learn to question the sources for information with which one forms opinions. For example, if you turn on the TV and every news show says the world is flat does that make it a fact?
Nope.
If President Bush makes a statement and 5 major news outlets put on dissenters for day after day and they all say the President is wrong, does that make it wrong?
Nope.
Post a Comment