Fitzgerald finally clarifies Plame's status.....OR....

[RightIsWrong]

I love the smell of talking points being debunked in the AM...or PM....doesn't really matter. What's the excuse now, righties?

In new court filings, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has finally resolved one of the most disputed issues at the core of the long-running CIA leak controversy: Valerie Plame Wilson, he asserts, was a ?covert? CIA officer who repeatedly traveled overseas using a ?cover identity? in order to disguise her relationship with the agency.

Fitzgerald cites Wilson?s covert status as part of his argument?advanced in two strongly worded memos filed in recent days?that I. Lewis ?Scooter? Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney?s former chief of staff, should be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

Libby was convicted last March of four counts of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury relating to what he knew, and with whom he shared information, about Valerie Plame Wilson in the weeks prior to her outing by columnist Robert Novak in a July 14, 2003 newspaper column. Libby, who is appealing the verdict, is due to be sentenced next Tuesday by U.S. Judge Reggie Walton?an event that could well reignite a fierce political controversy over whether President Bush should pardon the former Cheney aide.

Libby?s lawyers, and many conservative partisans of his cause, have argued that Libby should be spared prison in part because there was no underlying crime in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson?s identity. (As his trial established, Wilson?s identity was leaked to a number of reporters by several Bush administration officials who were interested in discrediting the attacks by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, on the White House?s handling of Iraq pre-war intelligence.)

A major theme of Libby?s defenders has been that, at the time of her outing, Valerie Wilson was little more than a desk analyst who was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?the 1982 law making it a crime to disclose the identity of a covert officer. Fitzgerald was originally appointed to investigate whether this statute had been violated. But in two memos?and in a document entitled, ?Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilson?s CIA Empooyment and Cover History?? Fitzgerald attempts to shoot down the idea that the agent's job was mostly analysis.

?It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute??the Intelligence Identities act? ?as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press,? Fitzgerald wrote in a sentencing memorandum filed late last Friday night.

A spokeswoman for Libby?s defense team declined to comment, saying his lawyers will address the issue when they file their own sentencing memorandum with Judge Walton in the next few days.

In the ?unclassified summary? of his memom which was based on information cleared by the CIA and became publicly available Tuesday, Fitzgerald provided new details about Wilson?s previously classified activities at the agency. In January, 2002, she was working for the agency ?as an operations officer? in the Directorate of Operations?s Counterproliferation Division (CPD) and serving as ?chief? of a unit with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. In that capacity, he added, she traveled overseas in an undercover capacity.

?She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries,? the document states. ?When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity?.At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson?s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employe for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.?

Libby?s trial earlier this year established that at least three other Bush administration officials ?former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (who testified under a grant of immunity) ? also disclosed information about Valerie Wilson?s identity to journalists. But Fitzgerald contends that Libby?s disclosures?primarily to New York Times reporter Judith Miller?were made ?deliberately and for the purpose for influencing media coverage of the public debate concerning intelligence leading to the war in Iraq? and, according to Libby?s own testimony, ?may have been sanctioned by the Vice President.? Moreover, while Libby denied ever knowing that Valerie Wilson was a covert agent (and prosecutors never introduced any evidence that he had) ?other evidence obtained by the grand jury indicated that defendant learned that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA from multiple government officials under circumstances that, at a bare minimum, warranted inquiry before the information was publicly disseminated.?

For all his strong language-Fitzgerald elsewhere asserts that Libby ?lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation?? it is unlikely that the prosecutor?s new filings will temper the enthusiasm among Libby's backers. Since his conviction last March, a number of conservative partisans?who shared with Libby his ardent support of the Iraq war?have mounted a vigorous public campaign in his defense and sought to lay the groundwork for a presidential pardon. In mid-May, Libby was a featured guest at a New York dinner honoring Norman Podhoretz, one of the neo-Conservative movement's intellectual godfathers. According to reports from the scene, the dinner, organized by Commentary Magazine, opened with cheers and a "standing ovation" for Libby.

Libby?s advocates have also found allies on Capitol Hill. In an appendix to a new report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee about Iraq war intelligence, three Republican senators-including Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, vice chairman of the panel?filed ?additional views? harshly criticizing Valerie Wilson and her husband for allegedly misleading the committee in 2004 about the role she played in suggesting her husband?s trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Citing allegedly contradictory statements she has made more recently to a House committee, the GOP senators called for a re-interview of Valerie Wilson.

One of Libby?s most ardent defenders, Richard Carlson, a former chief of the Voice of America who serves as a member of a defense trust set up for Libby, reacted harshly to Fitzgerald?s latest filings. ?I think it?s certainly unseemly that he is kicking him while he?s down,? Carlson said. ?For Fitzgerald, to get on his high horse, it?s disgusting and he should be ashamed of himself.?

 

[ProfJohn]

Finally, the Fitzgerald filings shed some new light on Valerie Plame Wilson?s job status at the CIA. In an exhibit attached to the sentencing memo, Fitzgerald reveals that at the time her name was published by columnist Robert Novak ? July 14, 2003 ? Mrs. Wilson was moving into an administrative position at CIA headquarters. ?In August 2003, Ms. Wilson was assigned to a senior personnel position in CPD [Counterproliferation Division], where she supervised staffing, recruiting, and training for CPD,? the document says. ?She had been selected for this position prior to the leak.?

Not sure how you can be covert while trying to get people to join the CIA or while you work at CIA HQ, but I am sure you will think of a way.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Finally, the Fitzgerald filings shed some new light on Valerie Plame Wilson?s job status at the CIA. In an exhibit attached to the sentencing memo, Fitzgerald reveals that at the time her name was published by columnist Robert Novak ? July 14, 2003 ? Mrs. Wilson was moving into an administrative position at CIA headquarters. ?In August 2003, Ms. Wilson was assigned to a senior personnel position in CPD [Counterproliferation Division], where she supervised staffing, recruiting, and training for CPD,? the document says. ?She had been selected for this position prior to the leak.?

Not sure how you can be covert while trying to get people to join the CIA or while you work at CIA HQ, but I am sure you will think of a way.

I guess in your reality...."moving into an administrative duty" == out of covert duty for > 7years.

I'm sure that you will think of a way to attempt to spin it though.

 

[BoberFett]

I have yet to understand why is the left so concerned about this whole thing. I thought we weren't supposed to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, and that the CIA was just a tool of corrupt politicians used to undermine the governments of sovereign nations? Seems to me outing these people would be in your interest?

Or are you simply torn between your love of solid foreign policy and your hatred of Bush?

 

[Lemon law]

We can debate all this again until we are blue in the face---but right now the judge who does the sentencing is the only person who decides. And if Judge Watson decides that Libby should go to jail, directly to jail, and don't remain free pending appeals, its going to be a pardon decision time for GWB. And thats going to send a chilling message either way GWB goes.

Only two people in the entire world now matter to Scooter Libby. And if he gets a thumbs down from both, he will have plenty of time to ponder how he went from the pinnacle of world power to the dregs of society.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I have yet to understand why is the left so concerned about this whole thing. I thought we weren't supposed to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, and that the CIA was just a tool of corrupt politicians used to undermine the governments of sovereign nations? Seems to me outing these people would be in your interest?

Or are you simply torn between your love of solid foreign policy and your hatred of Bush?

One would think that the CIA should live up to the same high standards that make America great and that where that happens anything that damages the CIA hurts every America, no? If you find it strange that someone on the left could defend the CIA, I find it almost Bizarre that somebody like yourself would try to throw this kind of monkey wrench into this debate. Seems to me that people on the right would be calling for these outing traitors to be shot, no? Do you really need to be reminded that what the CIA discovered was that the yellow cake stuff was a crock of sh!t designed to take America into a moronic war that has killed hundreds of thousands and cost us a good trillion, and destroyed our reputation around the world. Your attack of the left here strikes me as almost inane.

 

[Genx87]

This must explain why the grand jury indicted.

oops.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Bobberfett-

I have yet to understand why is the left so concerned about this whole thing. I thought we weren't supposed to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, and that the CIA was just a tool of corrupt politicians used to undermine the governments of sovereign nations? Seems to me outing these people would be in your interest?

Truly lame doublespeak. Gathering intelligence per se isn't meddling, it's only when that evolves into supporting coups, repressive govts, and terrorism that it becomes meddling...

The CIA is an implement of policy, and can be used for a variety of legitimate ends. That doesn't mean people who serve in such capacities are disposable for domestic political purposes.

From Genx87-

This must explain why the grand jury indicted.

Unfortunately, our system of Justice leaves a lot of unsoved crimes... I'm sure, however, that if Scooter were subjected to the same treatment afforded Jose Padilla or any Gitmo detainee that he'd reveal a great deal more than is currently known.. Not that I advocate such, at all, but it seems to me that those who defend "National Security" at any cost should favor the whole proposition. Heck, he's not just a suspect, but a convict, with that status being achieved in an open court of law rather than behind the closed doors of a secret tribunal...

 

[tw1164]

OP, What's the source of the quote?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Bobberfett-

I have yet to understand why is the left so concerned about this whole thing. I thought we weren't supposed to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, and that the CIA was just a tool of corrupt politicians used to undermine the governments of sovereign nations? Seems to me outing these people would be in your interest?

Truly lame doublespeak. Gathering intelligence per se isn't meddling, it's only when that evolves into supporting coups, repressive govts, and terrorism that it becomes meddling...

The CIA is an implement of policy, and can be used for a variety of legitimate ends. That doesn't mean people who serve in such capacities are disposable for domestic political purposes.

From Genx87-

This must explain why the grand jury indicted.

Unfortunately, our system of Justice leaves a lot of unsoved crimes... I'm sure, however, that if Scooter were subjected to the same treatment afforded Jose Padilla or any Gitmo detainee that he'd reveal a great deal more than is currently known.. Not that I advocate such, at all, but it seems to me that those who defend "National Security" at any cost should favor the whole proposition. Heck, he's not just a suspect, but a convict, with that status being achieved in an open court of law rather than behind the closed doors of a secret tribunal...

Grand Jury indicted the duke kids for christs sake based on nearly no evidence. Grand Jurys are basically a one sided affair where the prosecution gets to present what he wants to get an indictment for trial. You have to realize for nobody to be indicted in a grand jury means the evidence is non-existent.

 

[ayabe]

I think we all know that Rove would have been indicted if he wasn't allowed to change his testimony like 4 times, that's just ridiculous.

Don't think Libby had that luxury for whatever reason and thus hung himself.

Also, let's not miss the overarching point - no government official should be using the powers of his or her office to retaliate against political opponents.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
ITopic Summary: YARWTPDT (Yet Another Right-Wing Talking Point Destroyed thread)

:thumbsup:

 

[OrByte]

link?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The CIA asked for the criminal investigation into outing Valarie Plame.

Not the Democratic Party.

Not the anti-war movement.

Not al Qaeda.

The C-frikken-IA!

These people ignored the very foundation of the Plame investigation from its inception. Why should one piece of paper make any difference at all?

After all, it, too, came from the CIA.

This statement from Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, would have left no doubt in anyone actually interested in the facts:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

If someone can ignore that in favor of their talking points, it's pretty clear that facts simply don't matter to them.

Whenever something like this comes out debunking some long-held RW conventional wisdom, I play this game where I pretend I am righty pundit attempting to reconcile this ugly new piece of information with my worldview.

So here goes....

The CIA, like the Department of State, is run by a bunch of careerist bureaucrats, who only want to protect their own, are resistant to change, and will seek revenge upon anyone trying to challenge the status quo.

That was why we had to set up the Office of Special Plans, for which they still resent us.

So this new memo is nothing more than some belated attempt to hit the Bush adminsitration while they're down, and pre-empt Scooter Libby's rightful pardon, but it won't work. She had a desk, and worked at it sometimes. Those stodgy pencil-pushers would name anyone covert if it advanced their agenda.

So no apologies are needed. In fact, it is the CIA who should apologize to Scooter Libby and the Bush administration, for frivolously assigning covert status to someone who, did I mention? - had a desk and worked at it often.

They talking head noise machine will never believe that Plame was a covert agent. In order to fit this into their already fully-formed view of the world, they say things like, Plame couldn't have been covert because she traveled under her real name (as if it were her name that was the secret, rather than the fact that she worked for the CIA).

But the underlying point here, the thing that drives their continued denials of obvious facts, is their conviction that the CIA is weak, liberal, anti-Bush, and therefore traitorous. Nothing the CIA ever says will hold water with Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, or the "great minds in their own minds" over at NRO. The CIA is the enemy.

The obsessive re-articulation of established talking point, with added embellishments as needed is almost certainly going to be standard fare.

The CIA, after all, doesn't understand the law. They're not lawyers.

And Patrick Fitzgerald? Well, he may be a lawyer, but what kind of lawyer? He's a Republican doing the Democrats bidding, really. And certainly an attention whore. What does he know?

Victoria Toensing alone knows what the law is.

And besides, (a) Clinton did it too, and (b) Michael Moore wears a hat.

Now, back to the glorious surge!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The CIA asked for the criminal investigation into outing Valarie Plame.

Not the Democratic Party.

Not the anti-war movement.

Not al Qaeda.

The C-frikken-IA!

These people ignored the very foundation of the Plame investigation from its inception. Why should one piece of paper make any difference at all?

After all, it, too, came from the CIA.

This statement from Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, would have left no doubt in anyone actually interested in the facts:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

If someone can ignore that in favor of their talking points, it's pretty clear that facts simply don't matter to them.

Whenever something like this comes out debunking some long-held RW conventional wisdom, I play this game where I pretend I am righty pundit attempting to reconcile this ugly new piece of information with my worldview.

So here goes....

The CIA, like the Department of State, is run by a bunch of careerist bureaucrats, who only want to protect their own, are resistant to change, and will seek revenge upon anyone trying to challenge the status quo.

That was why we had to set up the Office of Special Plans, for which they still resent us.

So this new memo is nothing more than some belated attempt to hit the Bush adminsitration while they're down, and pre-empt Scooter Libby's rightful pardon, but it won't work. She had a desk, and worked at it sometimes. Those stodgy pencil-pushers would name anyone covert if it advanced their agenda.

So no apologies are needed. In fact, it is the CIA who should apologize to Scooter Libby and the Bush administration, for frivolously assigning covert status to someone who, did I mention? - had a desk and worked at it often.

They talking head noise machine will never believe that Plame was a covert agent. In order to fit this into their already fully-formed view of the world, they say things like, Plame couldn't have been covert because she traveled under her real name (as if it were her name that was the secret, rather than the fact that she worked for the CIA).

But the underlying point here, the thing that drives their continued denials of obvious facts, is their conviction that the CIA is weak, liberal, anti-Bush, and therefore traitorous. Nothing the CIA ever says will hold water with Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, or the "great minds in their own minds" over at NRO. The CIA is the enemy.

The obsessive re-articulation of established talking point, with added embellishments as needed is almost certainly going to be standard fare.

The CIA, after all, doesn't understand the law. They're not lawyers.

And Patrick Fitzgerald? Well, he may be a lawyer, but what kind of lawyer? He's a Republican doing the Democrats bidding, really. And certainly an attention whore. What does he know?

Victoria Toensing alone knows what the law is.

And besides, (a) Clinton did it too, and (b) Michael Moore wears a hat.

Now, back to the glorious surge!

A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. A very nice post. Intelligence, sadly, is mostly used for self deception.

We attach ourselves to externals, like parties, because parties are glorified by multitudes and we ourselves feel like sh!t. We can't let ourselves know that when millions of folk who feel worthless flock together the big flock is nothing but a giant collection of our individual sh!t. But we will never allow ourselves to see that because we can't let ourselves feel how we really feel. Our whole lives are one giant illusion.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The CIA asked for the criminal investigation into outing Valarie Plame.

Not the Democratic Party.

Not the anti-war movement.

Not al Qaeda.

The C-frikken-IA!

These people ignored the very foundation of the Plame investigation from its inception. Why should one piece of paper make any difference at all?

After all, it, too, came from the CIA.

This statement from Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, would have left no doubt in anyone actually interested in the facts:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

If someone can ignore that in favor of their talking points, it's pretty clear that facts simply don't matter to them.

Whenever something like this comes out debunking some long-held RW conventional wisdom, I play this game where I pretend I am righty pundit attempting to reconcile this ugly new piece of information with my worldview.

So here goes....

The CIA, like the Department of State, is run by a bunch of careerist bureaucrats, who only want to protect their own, are resistant to change, and will seek revenge upon anyone trying to challenge the status quo.

That was why we had to set up the Office of Special Plans, for which they still resent us.

So this new memo is nothing more than some belated attempt to hit the Bush adminsitration while they're down, and pre-empt Scooter Libby's rightful pardon, but it won't work. She had a desk, and worked at it sometimes. Those stodgy pencil-pushers would name anyone covert if it advanced their agenda.

So no apologies are needed. In fact, it is the CIA who should apologize to Scooter Libby and the Bush administration, for frivolously assigning covert status to someone who, did I mention? - had a desk and worked at it often.

They talking head noise machine will never believe that Plame was a covert agent. In order to fit this into their already fully-formed view of the world, they say things like, Plame couldn't have been covert because she traveled under her real name (as if it were her name that was the secret, rather than the fact that she worked for the CIA).

But the underlying point here, the thing that drives their continued denials of obvious facts, is their conviction that the CIA is weak, liberal, anti-Bush, and therefore traitorous. Nothing the CIA ever says will hold water with Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, or the "great minds in their own minds" over at NRO. The CIA is the enemy.

The obsessive re-articulation of established talking point, with added embellishments as needed is almost certainly going to be standard fare.

The CIA, after all, doesn't understand the law. They're not lawyers.

And Patrick Fitzgerald? Well, he may be a lawyer, but what kind of lawyer? He's a Republican doing the Democrats bidding, really. And certainly an attention whore. What does he know?

Victoria Toensing alone knows what the law is.

And besides, (a) Clinton did it too, and (b) Michael Moore wears a hat.

Now, back to the glorious surge!

Fantastic

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: tw1164
OP, What's the source of the quote?

Fitzgerald is the source....


Here's where the article came from though

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I thought Richard Armitage outed Plame...why isn't Fitzgerald going after him? This whole thing smells.

 

[Lemon law]

And the prize for the biggest whopper goes to whoever said the following---And Patrick Fitzgerald? Well, he may be a lawyer, but what kind of lawyer? He's a Republican doing the Democrats bidding, really. And certainly an attention whore. What does he know?

The first part is true---Fitzgerald is just one of the 93 Republican appointed US attorneys who was given special prosecutor status after Ashcroft---then the US AG quite correctly recursed himself from investigating the leaked identity of Plame. But I think anyone who is unbiased think he has been anything but a media whore---the status of Media whore has to go to people like Ken Starr. And Fitzgerald had what amounted to a dual mandate---find out what happened---and prosecute those responsible. He totally did the former, but weaknesses in the drafting of the law regarding outing CIA agents found the that the original drafters of the law were unable to to conceive that anyone within our own Government would do the outing. So we ended up with a knowingly covert wording in the law that made prosecuting people like Armitage and Novak impossible.

And unfortunately Libby decided to tell various fibs as Fitzgerald investigated---which Libby did of his own free will to impede Fitzgerald from getting at the truth---the act is called obstruction of justice and perjury---and its a very serious charge---and Fitzgerald proved it in a court of law in a very competent manner.---end of story.

And if Fitzgerald has been a media democratic media whore---he would have released all the relevant details about how Rove and others in the GWB administration mutually conspired
to out Valarie Plame's identity as an act of petty political revenge. Which Fitzgerald did not do---and in fact he pointed out it would not be fair to engage in a trial by the press he could have easily have fed. And during all of this, he only called one press conference to announce the indictment of Libby while also continuing to act in his normal capacity as a US attorney
in his district. Some of the documents that have come to light regarding the firing of other US attorney's shows Fitzgerald only got a C grade---and was not sufficiently partisan enough to suit the Gonzales Justice Department.

Calling Fitzgerald a media whore is a charge that anything that fits this fine man----he has proved that one can be a Republican and still do the American people's business. And anyone who thinks or posts that Fitzgerald is a media whore is quite plainly out of their mind.

 

[4X4er]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the prize for the biggest whopper goes to whoever said the following---And Patrick Fitzgerald? Well, he may be a lawyer, but what kind of lawyer? He's a Republican doing the Democrats bidding, really. And certainly an attention whore. What does he know?

Sarcasm meter broke? He was joking.
From his post:

Whenever something like this comes out debunking some long-held RW conventional wisdom, I play this game where I pretend I am righty pundit attempting to reconcile this ugly new piece of information with my worldview.
So here goes....

 

[Aisengard]

Lemon Law, he was merely impersonating a right-winger making inane talking points to further deflect blame from some of the worst criminals in United States history.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I thought Richard Armitage outed Plame...why isn't Fitzgerald going after him? This whole thing smells.

Because the statue criminalizing outing a covert agent is *very* narrowly written, and Fitzgerald concluded he had not violated the statute.

This does not mean that people Rove did not out Plame in a way that was immoral and harmful to the country, it means Fitzgerald concluded that they had violated the very narrow statute beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why ridiculous posts like genx's are ridiculous - pretending that the lack of charges proves anything about Plame's covert status, as they ignore the facts as usual.

 

[Fern]

Strikes me an odd piece by Fitzgerald. It's long been establised and argued by many that whether or not she was "covert" is irrelevant to Libby's crimes. He's been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, not outing her.

Strange to march this "pony" out into the spotlight now. Libby's crime were committed long after Plame was outted, and Fitzgeralds assertion that she was covert only reflects on the (potental) severity of Armitage's "mistake".

Why and/or how this makes Libby's crimes more "dastardly" makes no sense.

Instead, leaves me wondering even more why the CIA didn't stop the story when contacted by Novak. Then's the testimony showing that Plames husband and the CIA knew what Novak would write (outing her), why didn't they make efforts to have the story quashed?

I think the whole thing's a pile of crap.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Strikes me an odd piece by Fitzgerald. It's long been establised and argued by many that whether or not she was "covert" is irrelevant to Libby's crimes. He's been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, not outing her.

Strange to march this "pony" out into the spotlight now. Libby's crime were committed long after Plame was outted, and Fitzgeralds assertion that she was covert only reflects on the (potental) severity of Armitage's "mistake".

Why and/or how this makes Libby's crimes more "dastardly" makes no sense.

Instead, leaves me wondering even more why the CIA didn't stop the story when contacted by Novak. Then's the testimony showing that Plames husband and the CIA knew what Novak would write (outing her), why didn't they make efforts to have the story quashed?

I think the whole thing's a pile of crap.

Fern

One of the main arguments put out about this whole business was that it was a 'non issue' because she wasn't a covert agent. These people who argued against it were attempting to undermine the legitimacy of Fitzgerald's investigation, saying there was nothing to investigate (and therefore nothing requiring 'ol Scooter to testify on). It didn't remove his perjury, but had she turned out to just be a regular joe, it would have made the prosecution seem extremely silly. I'm pretty sure that's why Fitzgerald put it out there.

I really don't see how this is silly at all. Libby deliberately lied to a grand jury repeatedly. (if you check the testimony his argument that he just forgot looks completely laughable) He did it for purely political reasons. Enabling public figures to lie whenever it suits their purposes in order to avoid accountability is a cancer on our democracy. It was absolutely terrible when Bill Clinton did it, but it's even worse when figures are actually doing it about public policy decisions. This is the same reason why I think that congress should impeach Alberto Gonzales post haste. He has obviously lied under oath to the senate repeatedly. If he is not held accountable for his deliberate lies, then how can congress ever hope to fufill its constitutional obligation of oversight?

All ranting aside, I'm glad that loser's in jail. He thought the law didn't apply to him, and now he knows better.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Fern
[ ... ]
Instead, leaves me wondering even more why the CIA didn't stop the story when contacted by Novak. Then's the testimony showing that Plames husband and the CIA knew what Novak would write (outing her), why didn't they make efforts to have the story quashed? ...

The CIA did try to stop the story, as best they could without telling Novak he would be revealing classified information (since by telling him that, they would have been revealing classified information). Novak published it anyway.