Scooter Libby's sentence commuted by Bush; Libby won't be spending a day in prison

[quote name='CocheseUGA']Show me a lawyer that doesn't think his client is innocent.[/QUOTE]

Most of the ones who advise their client take the plea deal being offered to them. Like, a lot.
 
[quote name='trq']Most of the ones who advise their client take the plea deal being offered to them. Like, a lot.[/QUOTE]

No. Wrong context.

Ask a lawyer if his client is innocent.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Selective enforcement is hardly enforcement at all, and you know it, Rolly.[/quote]

Which would make sense were I trying to police the forums, but keep trying. For now, though, I'm gonna have to penalize you one '!'.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is it really up for debate, or are those on the right trying, as always, to obfuscate the truth of the matter in order to make their political grandstanding and tromping of the rule of law, yet again, seem somehow honorable?[/quote]
The CIA confirmed that Plame was on their payroll when Novak called.

And, besides, what the CIA designated her doesn't necessarily mean that outing her was a violation of the relevant laws: A fact made ever so clear by the prosecutor's unwillingness to charge the actual leaker.

Keep the faith though, you'll nail Rove someday.
 
I said nothing about Rove. I provided factual proof that Plame was covert, something you continue to argue. Go find Novak's quote that started this ordeal. I'll bet you're going to find a 6-letter word that starts with 'c' and ends with 'overt' in there.

Thank you for trying to, as always, muddy the issue and cause some obnoxious and untrue confusion. Your attempts at subterfuge make the right wing proud. Now, if you will, show me proof that the CIA was so open to Novak (as well as 'context,' a word I'm sure you despise), and find me further proof that she was not, in fact, covert. Your burden of proof, pal. I gave you the C-I-fuckin'-A. Why don't you go dig up a 'red state' blog to prove she wasn't? ;)

Now, as for convicting someone for leaking, the Libby trial was for perjury; like Clinton's quasi-impeachment, the trial was not about doing the deed, the trial was about lying about it. While I'd love for the leaker to be convicted of treason (or, at the very least, immediately fired as per Bush's claim that he'd do something if the leaker was found). I can't help but imagine that immunity was the one wagering point we had in getting to the bottom of this ordeal (if, in fact, we've done that). I understand that you have a paper-thin understanding of how investigations work, and for you, that's par for the course.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100903.html

I thought this was common knowledge. Novak got the fact that Wilson's wife was CIA from Armitage, looked up her name, then called Rove and the CIA themselves to confirm with yes/no questions (I heard Plame was CIA, is that true?). That's why I brought up Rove. Again, this is old news. It should be common knowledge across the board in this discussion.

Furthermore, under the IIPA (I didn't mention the specific law because I was unsure of its title. I still am.), there are strict guidelines as to what makes the revealing of a covert agent legally actionable. One of which is that the CIA itself must be actively protecting the agent's identity. The fact that Plame's identity was accidently revealed to Cuban authorities back in the day, that she recommended her husband for a fact-finding mission that he then published a major op-ed piece about, and that the CIA verified her employment makes the case for prosecuting tenuous indeed. Again, this should have been easy knowledge for anyone half serious about doing due diligence.

Then again, I suppose it is easier to save the two or so hours of detective work and just engage the partisan shields. It is always easier to accuse detractors of bias.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Then again, I suppose it is easier to save the two or so hours of detective work and just engage the partisan shields. It is always easier to accuse detractors of bias.[/QUOTE]

No one cares so much if you are biased, it is that you are a dishonest and annoying little turd.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100903.html

I thought this was common knowledge. Novak got the fact that Wilson's wife was CIA from Armitage, looked up her name, then called Rove and the CIA themselves to confirm with yes/no questions (I heard Plame was CIA, is that true?). That's why I brought up Rove. Again, this is old news. It should be common knowledge across the board in this discussion.

Furthermore, under the IIPA (I didn't mention the specific law because I was unsure of its title. I still am.), there are strict guidelines as to what makes the revealing of a covert agent legally actionable. One of which is that the CIA itself must be actively protecting the agent's identity. The fact that Plame's identity was accidently revealed to Cuban authorities back in the day, that she recommended her husband for a fact-finding mission that he then published a major op-ed piece about, and that the CIA verified her employment makes the case for prosecuting tenuous indeed. Again, this should have been easy knowledge for anyone half serious about doing due diligence.

Then again, I suppose it is easier to save the two or so hours of detective work and just engage the partisan shields. It is always easier to accuse detractors of bias.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to take a guess and claim that you clicked "I'm Feeling Lucky!" on google, and did not read the article you cited.

Novak's role in revealing Plame's CIA employment, which was classified, was the most controversial of his 49-year career as a Washington reporter. "What was frustrating," he said, "was that there were a lot of crazy things being said, that I had taken the Fifth Amendment or I had made a plea bargain. . . . It's obviously caused me a lot of trouble. If I had it to do all over again, would I have done it? It's a hard question to answer."
Click to expand...

Now, of course, this reminds me of another question I had back in 2003: why wasn't Novak indicted for treason? People talk amongst themselves in Washington, and even with beltway pundits (Novak, for all that he is a piece of garbage, is highly respected there) all the time. Novak was the first person to make Plame-Wilson's status public information.

Why, I ask? Well, like others (that boy Armitage you continually bray about), Novak was compliant with Fitzgerald. Why would somebody be compliant? Why would Monica Goodling speak before congress about her role in the attorney firing scandal? As I said before (and as you clearly ignored), this is how, regretfully, investigations work. People are compliant via plea bargains and, in Goodling's case, partial immunity.

What don't you grasp about that?

Since you seem to lack a coherent understanding of how investigations work, you may as well ask "why isn't Goodling being indicted/charged?" Well, the answer, of course, is precisely because she is being cooperative. Investigations involve tit-for-tat.

What don't you grasp about that?

Additionally, this whole argument is a red herring. Fitzgerald was charged with perjury. Nobody was charged with leaking Plame-Wilson's identity and status, so asking why nobody was is irrelevant. Libby was charged because he lied to a grand jury. Libby was convicted because he lied to a grand jury. Not because of his role in the Plame-Wilson scandal. Had he told the truth, he would not have been indicted, he would have not been convicted, he would have no sentence to commute.

What is so hard to grasp about that?

Really. Would I prefer someone involved in the leak be charged? You bet. Just as much as I would prefer someone be charged in the attorney firing scandal. However, since all the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, and Alberto Gonzalez is so full of pleading the fifths, lying, and selective memory lapses, nobody can be charged. If they would tell the truth, that would lead to a remarkably different result.

What's so hard to grasp about that? If the people you support would have told the truth in the first fucking place, we would not be in this mess. I fail to see how republican lying and obfuscation of the truth in a court of law and in a federal investigation leaves the investigators, the courts, the pursuants of truth blameworthy. Nevertheless, you've managed to find a way. :roll:

EDIT: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html

Novak had been told earlier in the week about Wilson's wife. He has written that he asked a senior administration official why Wilson, who had held a National Security Council staff position in the Clinton administration, had been given that assignment. The response, Novak wrote, was that "Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife." Novak then called another Bush official for confirmation and got the response "Oh, you know about it." Novak said he called the CIA on July 10, 2003, to get the agency's version. The then-CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, told the columnist that the story he had gotten about Wilson's wife's role was not correct. Novak has written that Harlow said the CPD officials selected Wilson but that she "was delegated to request his help."

Harlow has said that he told Novak that if he wrote about the trip, he should not mention Wilson's wife's name. Novak, who published her maiden name -- Valerie Plame -- has written that Harlow's request was "meaningless" because "once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.' "
Click to expand...
 
In all that moving of the goal posts, you failed to address a simple logical issue. If Plame's employment was so classified, why did the CIA confirm it to a reporter?

Nonetheless, you continue to deliberately misunderstand or willfully ignore the complexities of IIPA law. I am not trying to say that Plame is not covert per the CIA. I am trying to say that Plame is not "covert" in the legal definition.

Since she did not meet the legal standards, there was no underlying crime of outing.
 
As I addressed, it was Novak, who's not just a beat reporter for the Sioux City Community Journal. He probably has more knowledge of the CIA than Porter Goss.

Now, in all your moving of goal posts, you failed to address a simple logical issue. If Plame's employment was not classified, why in the hell would Harlow tell Novak not to use her name?
 
Took you long enough to dig that one up. I was seriously afraid that I was going to have to argue your case for you.

This is the one aspect of this case that confuses me. If Novak knows the CIA so well, why would he disregard such a warning?

Perhaps it was unconvincing? Usually, if a reporter makes such a call to the CIA, they are told in no uncertain terms that the agent in question's employment is classified and revealing it will compromise national security.

Perhaps it was the nature of journalism itself? This is certainly not the first nor will it be the last time classified information is leaked through the press.

Perhaps Novak smelled some sort of partisanship on the part of the CIA? Not likely, but possible. The CIA careerists had mostly been actively opposed to the Iraq affair and were unafraid of working against the president on the issue.

Still, nevertheless, Plame's legal status is a different game than how the CIA classified her.

EDIT: And, personally, I believe the attorneys 'scandal' to be the finest scandal crafted from whole cloth in recent memory, and I must applaud the press for a job well done on it.

EDIT2: Perhaps you could fill me in on one thing though, as I honestly do not know it myself: Barring the implications of Russert's memory vs. Libby's memory, how did Libby's perjury protect anybody?
 
Novak's claim was that (1) he used her maiden name, not her current name, and that (2) a book/article by Wilson mentions his wife by name (though, of course, not occupation), so anyone could put 2 and 2 together (discovering her name through Wilson's writing after reading that 'his wife' recommended him in Novak's article).

In short, Novak felt like disobeying Harlow's suggestion, and doing the arithmetic for his readers.

Now, of course, several questions remain:
1) Why would Novak go against Harlow's orders based on what he considered an easy tie-together, instead of thinking "well, if her identity can be found out so easily, perhaps I shouldn't mention her status at all"? The cheap and easy answer to this is simply his political allegiance.
2) Why would Harlow tell him not to mention her name, instead of, knowing her to be covert and her position classified, telling Novak not to mention anything about Plame-Wilson in his article?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Novak's claim was that (1) he used her maiden name, not her current name, and that (2) a book/article by Wilson mentions his wife by name (though, of course, not occupation), so anyone could put 2 and 2 together (discovering her name through Wilson's writing after reading that 'his wife' recommended him in Novak's article).

In short, Novak felt like disobeying Harlow's suggestion, and doing the arithmetic for his readers.[/quote]

Operating from the premise that Novak did not feel bound by Harlow's suggestion, then I'd call that simple journalism.


Now, of course, several questions remain:
1) Why would Novak go against Harlow's orders based on what he considered an easy tie-together, instead of thinking "well, if her identity can be found out so easily, perhaps I shouldn't mention her status at all"? The cheap and easy answer to this is simply his political allegiance.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that if you give me the NYT SWIFT reveal being done for the same reason.
 
[quote name='Cheese']I can't say I'm shocked though. After everything this administration has done over the last six and a half years, I think I'm all out of outrage.[/quote]

I agree. One of my Republican buddies was just telling me he's so tired of having to defend Bush and his ideological crusades.

I think we're all tired of this political cycle, it would be better if the elections were being held tommorrow.
 
Myke, if ye need a source, it'll take some time. Basic synopsis though is: Govt was monitoring banking for terror-related activities. Program was classified and had numerous success stories that intel community types attributed to its secrecy. The NYT reported on it... thus removing on its secrecy. If memory serves, they sat on the story for a while at the behest of the government, and released it with a "people's right to know" angle or something of the sort, despite the fact that the entire process was totally legal. I am unsure if there was an impetus for them to publish the SWIFT story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top