Why does it feel like Republicans and Conservatives do not give a rats ass about the outing of Valerie Plame

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Oh yeah, furthermore, why would the Bush administration want to punish Plame to begin with? Their beef was with Wilson. I can see them wanting to do something about the CIA officials that sent Wilson to Niger to begin with, or Wilson himself, but all Plame did was recommend Wilson for the job. She wasn't the one ultimately responsible for him getting the job. How does outing Plame hurt Wilson, or do anything for the Bush administration? The whole thing was a political set-up job from the get go.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
The fact that Armitage also disclosed Valerie Plame's identity does not mean that Libby is not guilty of a crime. While Libby was not accused of leaking Plame's identity, he did make false statements to FBI agents and to the grand jury.

That is a crime.

Armitage was a leaker. He wasn't the leaker.

In the end it was a victory for Rule of Law

Fitzgerald chose to prosecute the crimes for which he though he could get a conviction. And, it looks like he made the correct choice. You can't always get a conviction, even though a crime has been committed.

You prosecute with the evidence you have, not the evidence you wish you had.

As I understand it, the law regarding revealing the identity of a covert agent is written in a way that makes it quite hard to get a conviction. So, as he said, Fitzgerald went for a charge where there was a reasonably good chance of obtaining a conviction.

Regardless of the cimes that were or were not committed. The WH did not like what Joe Wilson said so they covertly attacked his credibility by saying his wife sent him because of nepotism. In the process they exposed the identity (or made it more widely known) of someone engaged in non-proliferation operations. Not sure why they didn't just publicly dispute what he said based on facts (even if they had to make them up as usual). They had the bully pulpit and he was a nobody.

If he does get a pardon, it is going to make all his supporters, who are pleading his innocence, look like fools. To accept a pardon is to confess your guilt.

According to Think Progress, Newsweek is saying that Libby may not qualify for a pardon:

Newsweek reports that Scooter Libby ?does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelines,? which in part ?require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application.? President Bush can easily waive the rules, but up until now he ?seems to have followed those guidelines"









 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I never said anything about *exclusive*? My point, which apparently wasn't clear to you, is that right wing nut jobs are used to breaking laws, specifically the very serious kind (selling arms to terrorists, breaking civil rights laws by bugging offices, and pitting the CIA against the FBI to cover it up). They've done so more often and certainly the more serious type of law breaking than the left. Doesn't make Dems/left/libs superior, just stating a historical fact.
I think if you did an honest assessment of historical fact, you would find that both parties have their fair share of political scandals and breaches of ethics. You are a bit vague in your factual evidence, so forgive my scrutiny.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

According to Think Progress, Newsweek is saying that Libby may not qualify for a pardon:

Newsweek reports that Scooter Libby ?does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelines,? which in part ?require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application.? President Bush can easily waive the rules, but up until now he ?seems to have followed those guidelines"

Actually, Clinton pardoned his former cabinet member Cisneros two years after he was convicted of - you got it - lying to the FBI about how much he'd paid a mistress.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: FoBoT
you need to talk to Richard Armitage
hush, libs hate when you bring up that name. let's focus on Libby :)
You can blame it on Libby for obstructing the investigation.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: FoBoT
you need to talk to Richard Armitage

Armitage did wrong but did not apparently commit a crime. Libby committed a crime covering his and Cheny's role up.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: XMan
Washington Post Article

The Libby Verdict
The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal

Wednesday, March 7, 2007; A16



THE CONVICTION of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice was grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense. Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.

The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance. It was propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury.

Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.

The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.


It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many Washington special prosecutors before him, he pressed on, pursuing every tangent in the case. In so doing he unnecessarily subjected numerous journalists to the ordeal of having to disclose confidential sources or face imprisonment. One, Judith Miller of the New York Times, lost several court appeals and spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify. The damage done to journalists' ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has yet to be measured.

Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.

Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.


This case was a joke. The fact that Libby was convicted of a process crime, not anything to do with the original investigation, only goes to show how much of a joke it was.


AND

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Yeah, pretty laughable to deny reality Bowfinger, I agree. Here's more confirmation of Plame's CIA status:

"Early in November 2005, posting in his own personal blog No Quarter, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson responds further to the ongoing dispute about Valerie Plame's status as a CIA NOC:

There is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person ?served? overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed. . . ."

I mean WTF?

Everywhere you look the story is different. If you're not a partisan hack, who'll pick and choose the story that fits your political taste, WTH are we to do?

As far as giving a rat's @ss, I'm too busy being confused by so many different stories about the same thing. What to believe a blog or a well known newspaper publication?

And to top it off, the whole Niger investigation by Wilson smells bogus from the outset. OK, I can get by the nepotism thing. But why is this guy running around making false claims about who sent him there? And about his report being widely circulated in the WH when it wasn't?

And this guy flys over to Niger, spent just a little time there talking to people and reasonable people are supposed to think that's a serious investigation?

Somebody needs to alert the other investigative services in this country that they are blowing a pile of money unneccessarily on forensics and other techniques.

"Are you a bank robber?"
"Nope"
"OK, well that's cleared up now. Thanks for your cooperation"

IIRC, The UK to this day remains behind the assertion.

Niger basically only exports Yellowcake (plus some goats)

IIRC a Nigeran gov offcial still insists the story is true.

Is it that hard to believe tht Iraqis' WERE actually interested in Yellowcake?

And if they were, I'm not sure what the big deal is? Like somehow it's a justification to bomb some country for trying to, or actually, buy yellowcake from Niger?

Wilson's trip looks to me like another retarded Washington DC political stunt, followed by another retarded stunt etc.

Fern
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Shivetya

Look, the law states exactly what the crime is, if what the law covers did not occur then no crime occured. You can't just make things crimes because you want to or it sounds good.

We already know who revealed the name. If he is not in jail or being tried then its because he didn't violate the law, hence no crime was comitted. There are no ands, ifs, or buts, about it.

I am all for prosecuting the guy if be broke the law, but until its determined he did no one can claim otherwise.

You clearly haven't read the law, at all, on this matter and are wasting the time of the intellectually honest people here who actually want to know the reality of the matter. You are woefully misinformed.

(4) The term "covert agent" means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States


Both Wilson, the CIA, and a former CIA official linked above have confirmed Plame's NOC status (classified) and her active status aboard within the past 5 years.

Even officially covered agents are covered under the law, though their cover is often not as deep supposedly.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Fern
I mean WTF?

Everywhere you look the story is different. If you're not a partisan hack, who'll pick and choose the story that fits your political taste, WTH are we to do?

As far as giving a rat's @ss, I'm too busy being confused by so many different stories about the same thing. What to believe a blog or a well known newspaper publication?

And to top it off, the whole Niger investigation by Wilson smells bogus from the outset. OK, I can get by the nepotism thing. But why is this guy running around making false claims about who sent him there? And about his report being widely circulated in the WH when it wasn't?

And this guy flys over to Niger, spent just a little time there talking to people and reasonable people are supposed to think that's a serious investigation?

Somebody needs to alert the other investigative services in this country that they are blowing a pile of money unneccessarily on forensics and other techniques.

"Are you a bank robber?"
"Nope"
"OK, well that's cleared up now. Thanks for your cooperation"

IIRC, The UK to this day remains behind the assertion.

Niger basically only exports Yellowcake (plus some goats)

IIRC a Nigeran gov offcial still insists the story is true.

Is it that hard to believe tht Iraqis' WERE actually interested in Yellowcake?

And if they were, I'm not sure what the big deal is? Like somehow it's a justification to bomb some country for trying to, or actually, buy yellowcake from Niger?

Wilson's trip looks to me like another retarded Washington DC political stunt, followed by another retarded stunt etc.

Fern

There aren't that many different stories. The vast majority of the news media has accurately reported that Plame was a NOC, at the very least covered under the law that protects agents from public exposure.

I imagine the reason the CIA initially asked for an investigation into the public exposure of one of their NOCs (a WMD NOC no less), is that they were concerned that someone within the administration might have purposefully revealed this classified information "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States". Obviously it was probably very difficult to prove Armitage knew her covert status. It just so happens that in the process the prosecution discovered that Libby obstructed the investigation by lying about when he heard this information, unless people here truly think he forgot he talked about Plame to other officials/reporters at least a dozen times.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Fern said:
I mean WTF?

Everywhere you look the story is different. If you're not a partisan hack, who'll pick and choose the story that fits your political taste, WTH are we to do?

As far as giving a rat's @ss, I'm too busy being confused by so many different stories about the same thing. What to believe a blog or a well known newspaper publication?

And to top it off, the whole Niger investigation by Wilson smells bogus from the outset. OK, I can get by the nepotism thing. But why is this guy running around making false claims about who sent him there? And about his report being widely circulated in the WH when it wasn't?

And this guy flys over to Niger, spent just a little time there talking to people and reasonable people are supposed to think that's a serious investigation?

Somebody needs to alert the other investigative services in this country that they are blowing a pile of money unneccessarily on forensics and other techniques.

"Are you a bank robber?"
"Nope"
"OK, well that's cleared up now. Thanks for your cooperation"

IIRC, The UK to this day remains behind the assertion.

Niger basically only exports Yellowcake (plus some goats)

IIRC a Nigeran gov offcial still insists the story is true.

Is it that hard to believe tht Iraqis' WERE actually interested in Yellowcake?

And if they were, I'm not sure what the big deal is? Like somehow it's a justification to bomb some country for trying to, or actually, buy yellowcake from Niger?

Wilson's trip looks to me like another retarded Washington DC political stunt, followed by another retarded stunt etc.

Completely laughable...

There you have it...I guess thats how it "really" happened, why were you not on the defense team?

If you are so worried about "blowing a pile of money unneccessarily" I guess it was ok to spend 80 million to see if Clinton got a hummer?

Let me repeat this again...he made false statements to FBI agents and to the grand jury.

That is a crime. You people are for upholding Rule of Law, are you not? Perjury's an incredibly big deal, no matter the context.

Fitzgerald didn't set out to trick Libby into perjury, he set out to investigate the leaks. In the course of that investigation, Libby lied, and Fitzgerald discovered the lie, which he could hardly just ignore.

If there's a duly authorized ongoing criminal investigation into X, and the FBI comes round your place and asks you about matters related to X, or if you're sworn in before the grand jury and are questioned about matters related to X, you should damn well tell the truth

Perjury is a huge deal. If we don't have the confidence that people will tell the truth under oath (or when speaking to the FBI in furtherance of an investigation), where does that leave the integrity of the judicial system?

If perjury isn't vigorously pursued and prosecuted, what incentive does anyone have to tell the truth?

You can't engage in post hoc analysis about whether it was worthwhile to launch the investigation knowing that it would only result in the conviction of one individual for perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements charges.

Rather, I think the two relevant inquiries are, first, whether it was appropriate to investigate the alleged leak in the first place and, second, upon discovering in the course of investigating the leak that the defendant had apparently perjured himself and obstructed the course of the investigation.

Perjury can NEVER happen without an investigation or a trial to form the context for it. So even if an investigation turns up nothing or a trial results in no conviction, perjury cases should still be pursued to preserve the basis for the justice system. Same goes for obstruction of justice.

This goes back to the issue that it is rarely the crime, it is the cover-up that gets you in trouble.

There are some rules that can be learned from our leaders:

Nixon will tell you to burn the tapes, assuming you don't just turn of the damned tape recorder.

Reagan will tell you to add in a few more, "I don't recalls."

Clinton will tell you to bend the meaning of words and obfuscate to the maximum.

I believe the perjury took place in the course of an investigation that was meant, not to necessarily entrap someone/anyone, but to see if any elected officials had engaged in wrongdoing. Fitzgerald didn't know ahead of time that someone was going to perjure himself; he was trying (presumably) to find out any and all crimes committed. That one happened in the course of the investigation doesn't mean that it should be overlooked.

I grant you that Fitzgerald was hoping for bigger game - indicting a Vice President would have been quite a scalp. But if a smaller fish jumps into your net, haul it in.

The investigation wasn't launched to get a perjury conviction.
The investigation was launched to find out the details and the truth of the matter.
In the course of the investigation Libby threw sand in Fitzgerald's eyes [lied etc]

Fitzgerald was unable to get to the truth of the matter because he had "sand thrown in his eyes" by Libby.

Libby's crimes are in no way diminished because they kept Fitzgerald from performing his investigation thoroughly. Actually, Libby's crimes are that he prevented Fitzgerald form performing his investigation thoroughly.

To say that since the attempt to thwart an investigation is successful it's not really a crime is just silly on the face of it.

Fitzgerald knew long ago that Armitage was Novak's primary source. But he also knew that Libby, Karl Rove, and Ari Fleischer (at least) had either leaked or confirmed Plame's status to various journalists. (Novak was just the first one to publish a story.)

One of the things that law enforcement and prosecutors have to be careful to avoid is the trap of "tunnel vision" - investigating a potential criminal offence with a pre-conceived version of what happened. A good police/prosecution team will approach the complaint with an open mind - has a criminal offence occurred? in what way? by one person or a group of persons?

Approaching this particular complaint with the idea that there was one and only one leaker would be that type of mistake. the police & prosecution have to keep an open mind, not only about whether a criminal offence occurred, but if so, in what way. in such a case like this one, with so many actors involved within government and in the media, I would expect that even if the facts started to point to only one leaker, the police and prosecutors would have to continue to investigate to be sure that that was in fact what happened. once they identified Armitage as a leaker, they couldn't just say "whoops - that's it". they would have to eliminate other possibilities as well.











 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Craig234

Armitage did wrong


/thread

:laugh: and so did Scooter.

One things for sure, the upcoming civil lawsuits promise to be entertaining as well. Personally I think Jack Black might be JUST the person for the role when the movie is made.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
You just have to know, that if it were a Democrat accused of leaking her name, the Repigs would already have the person executed, and worry about the investigation later...Their cries of "traitor" would be so loud, that it would even drown out the sounds of war in Baghdad...
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: BoomerD
You just have to know, that if it were a Democrat accused of leaking her name, the Repigs would already have the person executed, and worry about the investigation later...Their cries of "traitor" would be so loud, that it would even drown out the sounds of war in Baghdad...

Their cries of 'traitor' would be so loud...?

Maybe you should re-read ALL of the threads on this subject here. And Daily Koz and any other website that has debated this issue.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Fern
Firstly, it's not even clear if she was a covert agant, for the many reasons that have been discussed in (old) previous threads.

Then there's all those who claimed it was common knowledge that she was a CIA agent, she outted herself long ago etc.

Then, you've got the (potential) "outtee" Richard Armitage who was no freind of the Bush Admin anyway. Remind me, how did HE find out? (I honestly can't remember).

On top of that, a Congressional Bipartisan commitee determined her husband was lying, that what he uncovered did more to support the claim that the Iraqis were seeking yellow cake. Etc etc.

The whole things a freakin mess, a Washington DC BS polital soap opra.

Fern

The only mess I see is the one in your head.

well said my friend!!
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Craig234

Armitage did wrong


/thread

What does this mean? Seriously. Does this mean you don't give a rat's ass about the outing of Plame because Armitage did wrong?

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

Look, the law states exactly what the crime is, if what the law covers did not occur then no crime occured. You can't just make things crimes because you want to or it sounds good.

We already know who revealed the name. If he is not in jail or being tried then its because he didn't violate the law, hence no crime was comitted. There are no ands, ifs, or buts, about it.

I am all for prosecuting the guy if be broke the law, but until its determined he did no one can claim otherwise.

You clearly haven't read the law, at all, on this matter and are wasting the time of the intellectually honest people here who actually want to know the reality of the matter. You are woefully misinformed.

(4) The term "covert agent" means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States


Both Wilson, the CIA, and a former CIA official linked above have confirmed Plame's NOC status (classified) and her active status aboard within the past 5 years.

Even officially covered agents are covered under the law, though their cover is often not as deep supposedly.

Show proof of the fact she was NOC after 1997. Otherwise all you did was quote back to me stuff I explained earlier which showed no crime was committed. She was transfered to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division in 1997. She was oriented towards issue with Iraq. It was suspected her cover was initially blown by Aldrich Ames in 1994 and as such it was one reason she was reassigned.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Show proof of the fact she was NOC after 1997. Otherwise all you did was quote back to me stuff I explained earlier which showed no crime was committed. She was transfered to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division in 1997. She was oriented towards issue with Iraq. It was suspected her cover was initially blown by Aldrich Ames in 1994 and as such it was one reason she was reassigned.

The simple fact that the CIA asked the DoJ to investigate is proof enough. Details of her status and duties still remain classified, remember?

For an Admin and their fanbois who want "National Security" to trump all other concerns, this stands out as a glaring exception, obviously. Basically, you call for further compromises to security to "prove" that security has been breached... when it's as obvious as the nose on your face... It's a variant on the "Prove you don't have any WMD's!" that led to the invasion of Iraq... It's like demanding that skeptics prove there's no Sasquatch... a practiced deception, making the impossible seem entirely reasonable...
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn


The simple fact that the CIA asked the DoJ to investigate is proof enough.
Details of her status and duties still remain classified, remember?

Appparently this needs to be repeated and repeated until it sinks in. The CIA would know EXACTLY what was potentially compromised more so then any political hacks.
 

dwcal

Senior member
Jul 21, 2004
765
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I grant you that Fitzgerald was hoping for bigger game - indicting a Vice President would have been quite a scalp. But if a smaller fish jumps into your net, haul it in.
The charges against Libby were leverage to flip him as a witness to testify against Cheney. Libby decided to shut up just like a loyal mobster would. It's a tough choice between prison and ratting out Dick Cheney. I'd be more afraid of the latter, myself.

There was already some pretty damning testimony about Cheney that came out in Libby's trial, but not enough for an airtight case.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
Originally posted by: dwcal
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I grant you that Fitzgerald was hoping for bigger game - indicting a Vice President would have been quite a scalp. But if a smaller fish jumps into your net, haul it in.
The charges against Libby were leverage to flip him as a witness to testify against Cheney. Libby decided to shut up just like a loyal mobster would. It's a tough choice between prison and ratting out Dick Cheney. I'd be more afraid of the latter, myself.

There was already some pretty damning testimony about Cheney that came out in Libby's trial, but not enough for an airtight case.

No ******. He's already shown that he's willing to shoot a friend in the face...what might he do (or have done) to someone who ratted him out?
/me thinks John Gotti and company could take lessons from Cheney...