home

Rich v. Cohen

Sunday, Frank Rich wrote:

What makes these [Libby testimonials]rise above inanity is the portrait they provide of a wartime capital cut adrift from moral bearings. . . . The Libby supporters never acknowledge the undisputed fact that their hero, a lawyer by profession, leaked classified information about a covert C.I.A. officer. And that he did so not accidentally but to try to silence an administration critic who called attention to the White House's prewar lies about W.M.D. intelligence. And that he compounded the original lies by lying repeatedly to investigators pursuing an inquiry that without his interference might have nailed others now known to have also leaked Valerie Wilson's identity (Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer). . . . Given that Mr. Libby expressed no contrition in court after being convicted, you'd think some of his defenders might step into that moral vacuum to speak for him. But there's been so much lying surrounding this war from the start that everyone is inured to it by now. In Washington, lying no longer registers as an offense against the rule of law.

Right on cue comes Richard Cohen:

With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.

Of course, Cohen knows not what he is talking about on the facts and his moral compass in nonexistent. Cohen has no idea apparently that Libby was a leaker too. Apparently the idea of 2 or more leakers is too difficult a concept for Cohen to grasp. Apparently the idea of obstruction of justice is not comprehensible for Cohen. Of course, the idea that the CIA referred the case to the Justice Department is a fact unknown or conveniently ignored by Richard Cohen, a Beltway boob of the first order. Of course the fact that John Ashcroft had to recuse himself because of his ties to Karl Rove is not something Cohen can get his head around.

When men like James Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald can be falsely smeared by the likes of a doofus like Richard Cohen (and Cohen is a doofus on almost every issue by the way) says everything you need to know about the Beltway.

Consider this from Cohen:

As Fitzgerald worked his wonders, threatening jail and going after government gossips with splendid pluck, many opponents of the Iraq war cheered. They thought -- if "thought" can be used in this context -- that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something. For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.

Well, I doubt any thought has gone into this idiotic column. I do not know what would have come of the investigation if Scooter Libby had testify truthfully. But consider what Cohen is saying, who cares that there was an "effort to snooker an entire nation into war?" Who cares that the same group was willing to compromise the covert status of a CIA officer? Who cares about the hubris of government officials lying under oath and obstructing Justice?

Cohen quotes Robert Jackson saying "[prosecutors] should limit themselves to cases in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest." To Cohen, the hundred of thousands of persons in federal custody, they are good examples of this, but his cocktail party friends like Scooter Libby, whatever they do is A-Ok. Do not prosecute them!

On that point, let ME quote Robert Jackson:

It is my belief that the most important thing to bear in mind in administering a tax law, however burdensome or unpopular it may be, is to see that the burden is laid equally without discrimination or favoritism and without permitting evasion.

. . . I have no fear of that crude form of influence which is attempted to be exerted through political lawyers. What the public thinks about political [lawyers] is, however, a different matter. If they could realize that the employment of political lawyers prejudices their cases, there would be far less of this sort of thing.

It is more difficult to be undiscriminating, however, as between taxpayers who employ able lawyers and make studied and persistent efforts to minimize their taxes and those who patiently accept assessments and plan to meet them. It requires consistent effort to avoid being over-persuaded by those who are insistent and to avoid forgetting the interests of those who are absent and unprotesting but who are entitled to equal consideration. It requires straight thinking to avoid being influenced either for or against a taxpayer because of his wealth or position or activity, or because of his relationship to our friends or our party.

Here Cohen plays the role of Libby's political lawayer, because he is of the Beltway. I doubt very much that Richard Cohen cares for THAT QUOTE from Robert Jackson. For it exposes that Cohen is arguing for unequal justice. Robert Jackson's Justice Department, like John Ashcroft's and Alberto Gonzales', all prosecuted persons who committed perjury and obstruction of justice. On what basis should Scooter Libby get fsavorable treatment? Why should Scooter Libby be pardoned while the many persons in prison should be forgotten by Richard Cohen?

If Richard Cohen thinks obstruction of justice and perjury should not be punishable by prison time, then he should say so. But to Cohen, obstruction of justice and perjury by Beltway types is not a crime.

Robert Jackson would be appalled.

< Traveling Day , Tuesday Open Thread | On Signing Statements >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: best to keep the lights off (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    I think Richard Cohen's lights went out long ago.

    Cohenating: Coulterintuitive Condilyzing causing Demagogarrhea.

    Cohen is in the throes of Glenndemma and probably running a high risk of Gorinecrophilia.


    So (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    now Rich is the "angr[y] proselytizer on the left." ;-)

    A Fallen Soldier in the WOT (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    consider what Cohen is saying, who cares that there was an "effort to snooker an entire nation into war?" Who cares that the same group was willing to compromise the covert status of a CIA officer? Who cares about the hubris of government officials lying under oath and obstructing Justice?
    One Beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving - "weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness" of Libby's sentence.

    And there's the rub.

    None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing "in the nobility of this war," wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a "casualty" - a fallen soldier the president dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.

    Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.

    Moyers on Libby

    Greenwald nails it (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    The Libby prosecution clearly was the dirty work of the leftist anti-war movement in this country, just as Cohen describes.
    After all, the reason Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate this matter was because a left-wing government agency (known as the "Central Intelligence Agency") filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department, as the MoveOn-sympathizer CIA officials were apparently unhappy about the public unmasking of one of their covert agents.

    In response, Bush's left-wing anti-war Attorney General, John Ashcroft, judged the matter serious enough to recuse himself, leading Bush's left-wing anti-war Deputy Attorney General, James Comey, to conclude that a Special Prosecutor was needed. In turn, Comey appointed Fitzgerald, the left-wing anti-war Republican Prosecutor and Bush appointee, who secured a conviction of Libby, in response to which left-wing anti-war Bush appointee Judge Reggie Walton imposed Libby's sentence.



    Rob't Jackson w/be appalled by this administration (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by teacherken on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    allow me to quote perhaps his most famous words, from W. Virginia v Barnette, the 2nd Pledge case, in the opinion of the Court issued in 1943:

    If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

    The idea that this administration should be above criticism, that it is free to violate the rights of citizens (think of Jackson's dissent in Korematsu), that there is such a thing as a unitary executive as expounded by this administration (think of Jackson's e part test in the steel seizure case) leads me to believe that he woiuld condemn in the strongest terms most of the actions of this administration.

    Too bad Cohen only knows how to selectively - and out of context - find a quote that he thinks supports his very flawed position.

    How UnAmerican of Fitzgerald (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    How dare anyone meddle with the plans of a country bent on world domination, and no less to have done so while we are in the middle of several wars.

    Germany, who the architects of PNAC owe a great debt,  would have sent a prosecutor like Fitzgerald right to the gas chamber, and given Libby a couple of medals and maybe a hat.  

    The signatories of PNAC should have blanket immunity as long as we are at war (forever), right Mr. Cohen, ppj and slado?

    squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:48:19 PM EST
    How can I respond to such a comment.

    I mean  wit....

    oh.... you weren't trying to be funny??

    Parent

    You responded (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:49:05 PM EST
    FWIW.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:37:06 PM EST
    What does FWIW mean???

    I can never figure out all this blog speak.

    Parent

    For whatever its worth (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:39:07 PM EST
    oculus (1.00 / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:23:00 PM EST
    Thank you.

    And despite Edger's automtaic ad hominem attack, I really didn't. I don't do IM and I rarely comment outside of TL because I don't like echo chambers, be they from the Left or Right.

    Parent

    Once again, ppj (none / 0) (#182)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:29:46 PM EST
    Why do you feel attacked when someone praises your intelligence?

    Parent
    That answers a question I've been meaning (none / 0) (#207)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:23:49 AM EST
    to ask:  do you participate in other blogs?

    Parent
    oculus - Let me be blunt. (none / 0) (#208)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    Why would you want to know, or think it your business??

    But the answer is, mostly no. I learn nothing from the echo chambers of the Left and Right. TL is unique in encouraging disussion, although that doesn't suit Edger who, for some reason, thinks he runs the show...

    I have been hanging out here for over 4 years... I started to say blogging but I don't want sailor to suffer spasms.

    FWIW and BION I am a true social liberal, registered Independent and a ROF who lives in a Palatial Retirement Compound parcticing agronomy in a constant fight with rabbits, squirrels and Lefties....

    ;-)

    Parent

    To answer your question, I was curious (none / 0) (#214)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 04:53:27 PM EST
    because the atmosphere here is not particularly friendly to your contributions and, therefore, one wonders why a person would willingly "stay the course."  

    Parent
    oculus (none / 0) (#217)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    Rough seas make strong sailors.

    Eagles don't flock.

    I don't need to have my beliefs reaffrimed.

    Parent

    He knows that (none / 0) (#165)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    I just wanted to jump in b/4 you did! (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:43:44 PM EST
    Shorter Cohen: (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    laws and accountability are for little people.

    Why isnt this putz embarrassed to write crap like that? Because, when dealing with journalists with-sources-in-high-places and politics, it's best to leave the light off.

    History (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by manys on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    Were we supposed to think Leona Helmsley was an isolated incident?

    Parent
    BTW (4.75 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    Here is how the "liberal world" reacted to Fitzgerald's appointment:

    From presidential candidates to rank-and-file members of Congress, many Democrats reacted with skepticism last week when Attorney General John Ashcroft withdrew from oversight of the C.I.A. leak case because of the potential for political taint, and his deputy, James B. Comey Jr., named Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago, to lead the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has earned bipartisan accolades for his tough-mindedness and legal acumen, and Justice Department officials say he will have the authority and resources to pursue the evidence wherever it leads.

    Still, many Democrats said only a truly independent counsel -- one outside the Justice Department -- could fairly determine whether White House officials leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, as payback for her husband's criticism of Mr. Bush.

    ''The American people deserve the most independent review possible,'' said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat from Michigan.

    The paradox is not lost on some Republicans. ''No matter who they got to investigate this,'' one Republican aide said, ''I don't know that the Democrats would be happy.''

    In other words, Cohen is full of crap on that as well.


    I also recall Bush defenders (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    talking him up. They really don't want to go down the road of trashing Fitzgerald now.

    Parent
    They have gone way down that road (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    Shameless (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    but they know they can get away with it.

    Parent
    et al (1.00 / 4) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:37:13 AM EST
    now known to have also leaked Valerie Wilson's identity (Richard Armitage

    As everyone but Rich seems to know, Fitzgerald knew Armitage was a leaker when he was appointed, as did the State Department and FBI in 9/03.

    The secondary question is why Fitzgerald brought no charges of leaking against anyone. If he has evidence that proves she was covert, why didn't he bring it forward with an indictment and trial?

    That he did not places a large question mark above this whole affair.

    The standard excuse has been:

    Apparently the idea of 2 or more leakers is too difficult a concept for Cohen to grasp.

    Common sense goes begging in such a statement. Absent proof that they were working together, once the information was available, it was available.
    Period.

    It is likely that more people in DC knew about Mrs. Wilson than know who won yesterday's Washington National's baseball game.

    The facts are, as Fitzgerald finally revealed, his target was Cheney. And although he knew that Cheney had told Libby, he could not prove a conspiracy to leak a covert agent without Libby's cooperation. Again, he must not have information proving she was covert and understands that when the number of people who knew get put in front of a jury, the charges disappear like the dew in Dixie on a hot June day.

    Obviously (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:49:29 AM EST
    You are Cohen's target audience. Lap it up. Lying is OK, but someone who lies a liar is now unpatrioic.  Another principal swept under the rug for the war. Or is it the other way around?  

    But consider what Cohen is saying, who cares that there was an "effort to snooker an entire nation into war?" Who cares that the same group was willing to compromise the covert status of a CIA officer? Who cares about the hubris of government officials lying under oath and obstructing Justice?


    Parent
    Edit (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    Calling someone a liar is unpatriotic.

    Parent
    I'll pretend you have not been told this before (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:50:18 AM EST
    Armitage convinced Fitzgerald that he did not know Plame was a covert CIA agent. Thus, the requisite intention to out a covert agent was not present. Accordingly, Armitage, according to Fitzgerald, was not chargeable with violating the IIPA.

    Armitage immediately admitted his disclosure.

    As for the idea that leakers must be working together, this is just stupid. Armitage was not working together to discredit Joe Wilson by disclosing the "fact" that Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, got Joe that "boondoggle" of a trip to Niger.

    That plot was hatched at Cheney's behest. Ari Fleischer's testimony on the subject is especially damning of Libby.

    The problem for Libby is he lied about it all. He could have tried the truth absent one little fact, that he and Cheney knew that Plame was covert.

    You see the potential legal crime that started the investigation was the possible knowing outing of a covert CIA agent.

    It was not the attempted discrediting of Wilson.

    But once Bush had said he would fire leakers, irrespective of criminal violation, Libby and tnd Cheney were in trouble, political trouble.

    They KNEW they were behind it. And to save Cheney's political and possibly legal skin, Libby decided to lie and obstruct the investigation.

    This will be my last attempt to treat you seriously in this thread.

    Parent

    You said yesterday or the day before (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:32:17 AM EST
    that you have never seen ppj intentionally lie or mislead. Read his comment again.

    Parent
    I don;t think he is lying (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:34:33 AM EST
    I think he just does not have the capacity to understand the points.

    Parent
    Maybe. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    Personally, I think he does. His pretensions of incapacity are lies, imo.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 3) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    Your calling me a liar is an obvious attempt to smear and marginalize me as you have stated you want to do with all of those you disagree with.

    That is hardly an attitude that someone who calls themselves a liberal has.

    Parent

    PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    I said (pay close attention here) that I think you understand the points made about Libby's conviction and the ramifications of his crimes.

    I also said that, imo, your pretensions of incapacity are lies. Meaning I think you are much smarter than you pretend to be.

    Now, ppj, if you want to argue here that you do not understand something as simple and clear as Libby's conviction and the ramifications of his crimes, be my guest.

    And if you intend to argue here that your pretensions of incapacity are NOT lies, and that you are in fact as incacpcitated as you pretend to be... well... again, be my guest.

    Just give me a minute to make some popcorn and get comfortable, ok?

    This should be quite a show.

    Parent

    Ok, I'm back. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    Got the popcorn. Got a big jug of cold beer.

    Lemme just adjust the footrest and back on this lazyboy.... ahhhh. there we go.

    Ok...

    You've all heard about him before, but probably never realized just what an amazing, incredible talent this man can be.

    Today we have a special treat! Today we have a really big shew!

    The amazing  >>> PPJ! <<< is going to explain in his own words,to the audience that he either IS as incapacitated as he pretends to be... OR that he is lying when he pretends to be that incapacitated.

    Which is it going to be???? Either way it's beyond that capacity of mere mortals.

    Well.. we're about to get it straight from the horses ass... sorry... horses mouth:

    • Heeeeeeer'es PPJ!!!

    Boot. Yer on! Go boy!

    Parent

    Slado? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    Give PPJ a shove will you? The floor is his. The audience is on the edge of their seats. The anticpation is palpable. The air in here is thick with expectations of great revelations.

    Don't let PPJ let the audience down just because he's got stage fright, slado.

    Plant your foot on his backside and boot him out onto the stage.

    PPJ? You have the floor, man. Dazzle your audience.

    Parent

    You must have blinked ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    ... and missed the hook that immediately snatched him from stage quickly followed by a loud gong and Gene, Gene, the Dancing Machine.

    Sorry for the off topic, the devil made me do it.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    I have, edger.

    I await your reply...

    BTW - Did you read Tom M's 1:03PM comment??

    Oh, semanatics....

    Parent

    seman::a::tics? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    Are they like facial tics?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    semantics. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:52:21 PM EST

    At first I thought I had made a typo, but watching you try to ignore Tom M's comment it appears that you may have developed one..


    Parent
    Dazzling.... (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    You seem to have a problem understanding that "understanding" someone's point and being in disagreement with it are two separate things.

    Parent
    Then (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    what is your excuse for not addressing my point?

    You persist in nonsense Jim.

    I assume it is not your intention.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:47:38 PM EST
    So you don't understand that I disagree with your points and have refuted many...

    Parent
    That you think you have (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    is indicative that you do not understand my post.

    Parent
    So why no charge? (1.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    If all this is so obvious why wasn't he charged with the crime?

    How many months and dollars where spent attempting to prove what you've stated?  

    If he had any evidence showing what you've stated and he obviously believed then why wasn't Libby tried?   Is he that smart that he covered his tracks?

    You sound like a repulican complaining about Whitewater.


    Parent

    because libby covered up the crime (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    He was charged (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:01:10 AM EST
    with perjury and obstruction of justice.

    2 counts each.

    Found guilty. On all charges.

    I do not understand your question.

    This post is about Cohen's call for Libby to be pardoned.

    Parent

    His question (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    is intentional obtuseness. He knows this stuff.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 3) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    This will be my last attempt to treat you seriously in this thread.

    If you are laboring under the belief that I care if you treat me "seriously," please let me remove that burden from your shoulders. I don't.

    Armitage immediately admitted his disclosure.

    Armitage dropped a dime on Mrs. Wilson to Woodward on 6/13 and to Novak on 7/8. He confessed in September.

    That is hardly "immedately."

    As for the idea that leakers must be working together, this is just stupid.

    Glad you agree with my statement...

    Absent proof.....

    Or did you miss it??

    Telling Flesicher on July 7 that Plame worked for the CIA does not in any way prove that he knew she was covert. It just means that he thought the information was "hush  hush." I note that Libby denies telling Flesicher that.

    But, for sake of argument, let's say that it happened.

    July 11: Fleischer, on a presidential trip to Africa, tells two reporters that Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

    July 12: Walter Pincus of the Washington Post says Fleischer tells him that Wilson's wife works at the CIA. Fleischer doesn't recall that.

    If you believe that the law requires knowldge that the agent be covert, which it does, and if you believe that Libby told Fleischer she was covert (hush - hush), then it is obvious that Fleischer should have been prosecuted.

    That he didn't again shows that he did not have proof that she was covert, and was interested only in Libby because he worked for Cheney.

    From your quote in your first comment.

    Still, many Democrats said only a truly independent counsel -- one outside the Justice Department -- could fairly determine whether White House officials leaked the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, as payback for her husband's criticism of Mr. Bush.

    ''The American people deserve the most independent review possible,'' said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat from Michigan.

    Since Fitzgerald was within the DOJ, I wonder how he got appointed if the intent was to please Conyers and his merry band of Demos??

    Finally:

    You see the potential legal crime that started the investigation was the possible knowing outing of a covert CIA agent.

    It was not the attempted discrediting of Wilson.

    I can't understand why you write the above, but I again am pleased that you agree. I wrote:

    The facts are, as Fitzgerald finally revealed, his target was Cheney. And although he knew that Cheney had told Libby, he could not prove a conspiracy to leak a covert agent without Libby's cooperation. Again, he must not have information proving she was covert and understands that when the number of people who knew get put in front of a jury, the charges disappear like the dew in Dixie on a hot June day.

    At the end of the day this started as a Demo driven witch hunt and ended as one.

    Perhaps if Bush doesn't pardon Libby, Thompson will do so on his first day in office.

    Parent

    Witch hunt? No. More like insect removal. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    At the end of the day this started as a Demo driven witch hunt and ended as one.

    Witch hunt? Witch hunt?

    You're comparing the Libby conviction to something on the level of your wot delusions now?

    Two different things. Libby lies were real. Not fantasies. They were obstructions of justice.

    And under American law they are serious crimes. Of which he was convicted. They resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

    Libby is a damned lucky man:

    In a nation that prides itself on living by the rule of law, Mr. Libby should have been tried for treason.
    ...
    The lies promulgated by Mr. Libby led directly to the deaths of 3,185 American soldiers and the wounding of between 47,000 and 53,000 more soldiers. This amounts to between a third and a fourth of the entire active combat force of the United States military.

    The lies promulgated by Mr. Libby led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the maiming of thousands more, and the creation of a sectarian civil war in that nation whose effects will be generational in impact.
    ...
    Mr. Libby's lies helped get a lot of people killed, helped undermine our ability to defend ourselves against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and helped midwife a war that cuts us all to the quick with every passing day. If that isn't treason, then treason simply does not exist as an actionable criminal act.



    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 2) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:23:40 PM EST
    I again note that using a link to your own post in your own blog is intellectually wrong as it gives the impression that you are quoting another source to prove your position.

    Two different things. Libby lies were real. Not fantasies. They were obstructions of justice.

    First, as you well know, I disagree with the verdict.

    Now. Since the conviction, which you love to reference was about lying about outing a covert agent, how does that have anything to do with the Iraqi battle in the WOT??

    Your position again shows you using something, the conviction, to try and prove a separate point. They aren't connected.

    Parent

    You disagree that Libby lied? (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    Hoo boy. I find no one thinks that.

    The argument now is the sentence is too harsh and Scooter deserves a pardon, or in the words of Ajami, you can't leave a fallen comrade behind.

    The new new defense - Scooter didn't lie!

    Ha ha! this time you pinned the tail on yourself Jim.

    Parent

    Next talking point: (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by manys on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    Libby is a lot like Jesus Christ.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:58:54 PM EST
    The argument now is the sentence is too harsh and Scooter deserves a pardon, or in the words of Ajami, you can't leave a fallen comrade behind.

    No, that is what you would like the argument to be.

    Parent

    Wow. Maybe BTD was right. :-) (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:26 PM EST
    follow the link (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:42:51 PM EST
    I again note that using a link to your own post in your own blog is intellectually wrong as it gives the impression that you are quoting another source to prove your position.
    If you'd bother to follow the link you'd find links to actual sources.

    You constantly link to powerlie and other blogs you claim support your aspersions. Yet another case where you castigate another for doing what you do.

    p.s. In TL's blogiversary comments you said "When I started blogging"
    You don't blog. You comment on a blog. It's the equivalent of saying you write for a newspaper when all you do is send letters to the editor.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:14:59 PM EST
    Sailor... glad to know you read my comment.. But I think you knew what I meant, so outside of being nasty, what's your point??

    And are you 100% correct? I don't know, nor do I really care.... but...

    Anyone? If you make a comment on a post within a blog, are you blogging?? Aren't  the commentators important in blogs that accept comments? And is a blog that doesn't accept comments a blog in the same sense as one that does? Inquiring minds want to know... This is almost as important as whether it is Godwins or Goodwins law....

    But don't answer here or Sailor will accuse me of being off topic answering his off topic attack.

    And yes, I use links. But not in such a way that I make people think that the link is a "separate" source. That's the differece.

    It would be honest if it was saud like:

    As I said in my blog...

    The difference is in the expectation given the reader that the link is to a separarte source if the source is not revealed.

    Parent

    Now that's a lie (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    At the end of the day this started as a Demo driven witch hunt and ended as one.
    Everyone involved, from ashcroft to comey to fitz to walton are all bush appointees.

    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    The attacks and demands came from Demos..

    And your point is??

    Parent

    I stated my point (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE REPORTING OF THE CRIME, THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME AND THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME WERE REPUBS.

    AND ALMOST ALL WERE APPOINTED BY BUSH.

    The dems were powerless and no ability to influence the process.

    Parent

    Sailor pinned you a tail too (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    You should go back to arguing Iraq.

    If you were arguing my side, I would ask you to retire from the field.

    Parent

    plame testified under oath that she was covert (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by conchita on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:18:36 AM EST
    just because libby lied to the grand jury does not mean that plame also lied.  it is one simple reason why libby cannot be pardoned - it is against the law to lie under oath and we cannot afford to have a known liar pardoned, particularly one who obstructed justice.  there is a standard here and it must apply to everyone equally.

    Parent
    To be clear (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    Plame testifed before Congress under oath.

    Parent
    yes, thank you (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by conchita on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:39:56 AM EST
    i considered including that, but just as i know that jim knows this already, he also knows that she testified before congress under oath.  imo, it is reflective of the absurdity of his position that my comment and your clarification even have to be written.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    Read my reply to conchita.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    Your argument is Gore's argument that there was no "recognized legal authority." how pathetic for you.

    Parent
    BTD - Not at all. (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    My point is that the law hasn't been defined, not that there is no legal authority, controlling or otherwise.

    But good try.

    Parent

    Thanks for reminding me (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    Gore said "No controlling legal authority."

    Just liek Gore. Good job Jim.

    Parent

    from Brad DeLong (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    IRT debating
    We want an "honest conservative"--a conservative intellectual adversary we can respect, who is also intelligent. But their first move is to define a "conservative" as a public supporter of the Bush regime and its deeds. That means, I think, that they are searching the empty set.


    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:13:41 PM EST
    People are always searching for their ideals...

    That those on the Left have problems finding a conservative they can have a discussion with is no different than those on the Right having trouble finding one on the Left.

    Why does both groups think themselves unique??

    Parent

    A conservative (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:19:54 PM EST
    who can conduct a reasonable logical fact respecting discussion with a liberal is very common.

    A right wing extremist (read 'wingnut') who tries to pose as a conservative but cannot agree on the value or meaning of fact and reasoning cannot conduct a reasonable discussion with anyone, liberal or conservative.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:11:03 PM EST
    And why do you repeat the point??

    I note again that my comment is that "service" hasn't been defined.

    That has nothing to do with legal authority. Lack of  or plenty of.

    Do you not undersrand MY point??

    I mean you being so big on points, understanding, etc....

    Parent

    conchita (1.00 / 3) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    The fact that she nay believe she was "covert" has nothing to do with if she was, in fact, actually covert.

    The CIA claims that she met the requirement for "service" outside the US with in the past five years by some very short term trips. The question as to the legal definition of "service" has not be defined.

    Parent

    But the CIA (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    who knows more about than you or I, says she was covert.

    Does that count for anything for you? Of course not.

    Look Jim, here is your best argument - Libby did not know she was covert.

    Try that one on for size.

    Parent

    He is thread crapping again. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    He's not here for any kind of understanding.

    Parent
    I think he is an easy foil today (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    I think we have all pinned at least 3 tails on him.

    He has served a purpose.

    Parent

    Insects serve a purpose too. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    To pest control companies.

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:42:37 PM EST
    Tales of blind men and elephants, sounds about right. What a dumba$$.

    Parent
    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:15:26 PM EST
    Ah, squeaky...

    Should I provide my favorite quote where you admit to not having to have "proof" to smear people??

    Parent

    Smear People? (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:28:17 PM EST
    No you mean the one that had to do with saying disparaging things about your man, Karl Rove, It had to do with not giving Rove the benefit of the doubt regarding the rumor that he was a direct descendent of a Nazi Politician. His methods are right out of the Nazi playbook.

    Parent
    What is it? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    Allowed us to (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    thoroughly debunk the nonsense from the Right on this issue.

    It is much easier when they are presented so poorly.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:28:01 PM EST
    So, what is your complaint??

    I never complain that a poker opponent is playing badly. I just let him play.

    You

    doth protest too much, methinks..

    Apologies to Wm S. methinks.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 2) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    I am always happy to serve.

    There is never any doubt in my mind of the wit and wisdom found in your widely divergent post.

    And then I read them...

    ;-)

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 2) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    According to you, the purpose of this blog is to agree with Edger.

    I don't thing that is correct.

    Parent

    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    The purpose of this blog, imo, is for people to learn and agree with reality.

    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    Parent
    I am so. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    The purpose (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    isnt to except payment in order to disperse moronic talking points gleaned from the Heritage Foundation and the Motherhood and Apple Pie Institute, either.

    Parent
    jondee - Glass houses and all that... (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:37:47 PM EST
    isnt to except payment in order to disperse moronic talking points

    ;-)

    Parent

    jim, even michael hayden confirmed with congress (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by conchita on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    that she was covert when she was exposed, she was working undercover, and any disclosure of her employment status with the agency was prohibited by executive order.  why do you persist on going down this path that was debunked months ago?

    Parent
    conchita (1.00 / 2) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    Don't confuse the issue.

    The CIA waited months and months to release any information as to her travel. When they did, it turns out it was very short term travel.

    The question is, what does the word "service" mean in the context of the law.

    i.e. If I say I was in the military and I served in a squadron that doesn't mean I was there TAD for a week.

    As for Hayden, he can be as wrong as Mrs. Wilson on this issue. Given that the given information is accurate and complete, he doesn't know either.

    Parent

    so i guess this makes you THE authority? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by conchita on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    give me a break, jim.  hayden is the head of the cia.  

    Parent
    conchita (1.00 / 2) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    Again. Do you believe everythig the head of an agency tells you??

    After all, Tenet told us:


    Slam dunk!

    Again. You believe because you want to believe. Just as you don't believe Bush because you don't want to believe.

    My point remains. Let the courts define "service" in the context of this law.


    Parent

    You're a good Republican (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by manys on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    But the universe isn't all about "belief."

    Parent
    Well Tenet denied that (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    but your comparison of the two issues shows a deficiency in intelligence that makes discussion difficult.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:51:20 AM EST
    And Libby denys several things.

    And your point is??

    Parent

    Snort (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    What is the meaning of "overseas travel?"

    You have become Gore and Clinton all in one.

    Tom Maguire has floated this silly argument and the words mean what they mean for good reason.

    You see, the idea of penalizing disclosure of covert agents is to protect them and their contact and operatives.

    If you travel abroad 5 time in a year for 3 day intervals and your cover is blown, you are at risk and your contacts are at risk.

    Frankly, Maguire has been quite foolish of late but he is reaching these points because his arguments have been blown to bits.

    You do not even state Maguire's arguments properly, as weak as they are.

    Parent

    Maguire (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by manys on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    I agree. He's been reaching for the merest threads since the conviction evaporated his raison d'etre. Kind of a sad downward spiral, now his blog is pretty much just a echo-pit on part with LGF and their ilk.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:54:01 AM EST
    Ah yes, the old "he's foolish" argument.

    Was his quotes incorrect?

    BTW - Why are you against having a word defined that is part of a law??

    Parent

    Jeebus... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by desertswine on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    you're trying to speak rationaly to a jamoke that thinks the Audubon Society is subversive.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:26:50 PM EST
    It counts for whatever you personally want it to count for you.

    Shall we make it a habit to believe everything a government agency tell us???

    Parent

    For normal and reasonably intelligent people (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    the determination of the specialized agency would count for a lot.

    In the law, one of your favorite Justices, Scalia, has created the Chevron doctrine on that basis.

    Look it up Jim.

    Parent

    Justice Stevens (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:33:01 PM EST
    Scalia did not join the Court until later.

    My mistake.

    Parent

    Here is the relevant standard (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.*fn9 If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute,*fn10 as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.*fn11

    "The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress." Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974). If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.*fn12 Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.*fn13

    By analogy, the agency here is, um, The Agency.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.

    Congress wrote the law. The question is, what did they mean by "service?"

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    The quopte I gave you demonstrates that it is the law that an agency's view may be the deciding interpretation unless it is arbitrary and capricious.

    The CIA's view here is clearly NOT arbitrary or capricious.

    Did you read it?

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    If Congress has
    explicitly
    left a gap for the agency to fill,

    You assume that the Congress deliberately left it up to the CIA to determine what service meant in a law that was meant to define a covert agent and regulate the CIA.

    I don't think Congress meant for the CIA to regulate itself and define who is, or who is not.

    One of the reasons for the five year rule is to prevent a large number of covert agents to exist within the US.

    Parent

    BTD - Gasp..... You made one?? (1.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    Let me note the year, month, day and hour...

    ;-)

    I understand your point, and your belief, becuase without it you are adrift.

    Why not just say, Okay. I think your wrong, but let's let the courts define what the word means in the context of the law.

    After all, you are an attorney, and as a fellow liberal I would think you would want clarity in such matters.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:45:15 PM EST
    but let's let the courts define what the word means in the context of the law.

    They did.

    Parent

    I am adrift? (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    The jury convicted Libby.

    This discussion is just good fun for pinning tails on you.

    I admit I am enjoying it today. You make it so easy.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:26:32 PM EST
    Tell me this.

    Why do you keep restating that?

    No one is disagreeing with you.

    The question is whether or not "we" think the jury was correct, whether we think the prosecution was proper, and how quickly Libby should be pardoned if the Appeals Courts don't over turn his conviction.

    Now, if all you have to say is:

    All I want to doscuss is that Libby was convicted
    .

    Agreed.

    So what's your point???

    Parent

    Where we thinkj the jury was correct (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:30:10 PM EST
    in not the basis for a grounded reasonings for pardon.

    Did you review the evidence? do you believe in the American justice system? If you do not, then let us free everyone convicted by a jury.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:53:22 PM EST
    Do I believe??

    In what?

    That a conviction is always correct?? Of course not.

    Do you?

    Your vision is as clouded as mine, so let us not make such claims, or ask such questions as:

    If you do not, then let us free everyone convicted by a jury.


    Parent
    well, jim, exactly who do you think we should (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by conchita on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    believe?  scooter libby???  even walton concurred that she was covert.  you clearly do not want to believe she was covert.  but this is all a distraction, libby lied to a grand jury.  will you try to think of some way to question this indisputable fact also?

    Parent
    conchita (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    Uh, I don't have to believe that he lied.

    Just as I didn't believe many of the fairy tales that came out of previous administrations...

    You do understand that, don't you??

    If you don't, there is no need for any appeals court, no supreme court... we'll just have a trial and hang'em...  especially if the trial judge agrees...

    Parent

    Do you believe there are WMD in Iraq? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    You are the perfect foil.

    A perfectly blind true believer.

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 2) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    Well, keep laughing...

    To answer your off topic question:

    I believe there was.

    I believe that Saddam was trying to get back in.

    Parent

    I believeD there was (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    the evidence has proven my belief was wrong.

    Facts do not enter your calculus ever.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:58:59 AM EST
    Are you saying that there were no WMD's in Iraq??

    I think you miss a lot of things people write.

    Parent

    how many times does the fact that he was convicted (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by conchita on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    by a jury in a court have to be stated?  it this discussion hadn't become so amusing (thank you), it would be the height of absurdity.  

    Parent
    conchita (1.00 / 2) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    I would say, just off hand now, that it "has" to be stated as many times as you want..

    The subject has been Rich and Cohen's statements, and the disagreement by some of us with one or the other, and why we think so, not the rather well known fact that Libby was convicted.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    Try reading Tom M's comment.

    Evidently she didn't.

    Evidently even the CIA hasn't provided the information requested by Congress in their constitutional oversight duty....

    ;-)

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    Give it up.  Libby is not guilty of anything more then lying to a prosecuter for political gain.

    Is he guilty of that?  I believe so.

    Did Fitzgerald prosecute him for that because he couldn't prosecute anyone for anything else?  I believe so.

    That you continue to push the "theory" that there was some grand cabal to get Wilson for is foolish.   Wilson is a liar.   The administration had every right to defend themselves against his accusations but they did not have the right to out a covert CIA agent.   Unfortunately the CIA agent put herself in jeaporday by publicly presenting herself around Washington and getting involved in appointing her husban who then wrote an Op-Ed in the NYT's.   Hardly the acts of a covert agent worried about her livelyhood.   If the administration knew who she was it is only because everyone else in Washington did too and frankly if your husban writes an Op-Ed filled with lies attacking the administration then you should know what's coming.

    This whole mess was an attempt to get at the administration and it fell short becuase Armitage was the leaker.

    Enough already.

    That would be why the administration (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    of George W. Bush is so popular. Right, slado?

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    I hope you are willing to say enough on the poor Scooter business.

    Talk to Cohen about that will you?

    Parent

    Approval Ratings? (1.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    Is that a trump card.

    If so why are Reid and Pelosi's even worse?

    Polls

    Parent

    You know why. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    Because they haven't ending the debacle yet.

    Quit trolling and stick to the topic of the thread, slado.

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:16:13 PM EST
    Actually, if you are looking for sinners, try reading your comment at 10:54AM.

    First stone cast and all that...

    Parent

    Agree to disagree (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    We'll have to diverge on this.

    I make no apoligies for Libby.  I think the penalty is too harsh and reflective of the countries disastisfaction with the war but I don't think it's unfair.

    I was calling for Martha's head when she did the same thing.

    I think he was worried about the political consequences (like the Bush Admin. always is, too much so IMHO) and lied because he didn't think it would amount to much.   When it did he was stuck.   I think they tried to discredit Wilson because he was very easily discreditable and like Armitage had no idea she was covert because everyone already knew who she was.  

    I think they were guilty of covering up for something they weren't guilty of and Fitz because like you thought there was something else going on prosecuted him for a real crime.

    So be it.  If Bush pardons him so be it as well.

    It's the law after all.

    Parent

    Agree to disagree? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    Not on the facts.

    We disagree in our opinions on the correctness of a pardon.

    That Bush has the power to pardon him is obvious.

    That it would be wrong to pardon Libby is my opinion.

    My post is about Cohen's awful column.

    Parent

    Great column (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:48:16 AM EST
    My points are that I agree with him for all the same reasons.

    If I misunderstood your post I apologize but I took it to mean that he shouldn't be pardoned because he's really guilty of something greater then he's actually convicted of.

    I don't think he is and I think his actual sentence is pretty harsh so a pardon wouldn't bother me if it occured at the end of Bush's presidency.


    Parent

    He should not be pardoned (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    because if what he was convicted of and he is unwillingess to show contrition, remorse or understanding.

    What was Cohen's argument for pardon? Sure he committed multiple felonies but that should be ok for people in the Beltway Elite.

    And you thought that a great argument.

    I shake my head at you.

    Parent

    No quite... (1.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    his argument.

    His point is this prosecuter had no case all along, knew it and when he couldn't manufacturer one he hung Libby out to dry for lying because he was prosecuting a political case not a legal one.

    Libby unfortunately did commit the crime of lying so he deserves punishment.   Just not as much he's received.

    You don't have to agree but that was his argument.

    Parent

    So why didn't Libby tell the truth? (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    This is bs.

    Parent
    You think the penalty was too harsh? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    I bet you do.

    Considering the ramifications of Libby's lies and the hundreds of thousands dead because of Libby and Cheney and Bush and Armitage and Rove conspiring to deceive the country into the catastrophe they've created in Iraq - you'd better exert your goddamndest efforts to minimalize the crimes of perjuring by lying under oath and of lying to FBI agents in the course of an investigation to obstruct justice.

    Otherwise people might start questioning all the other lies of the administration and the right wing.

    For chrissakes they might even start to question the whole culture of believing that lying is acceptable behavior and just another point of view as valid as any other.

    Then you'd really be fu*ked.

    You better stay on this one like a pitbull with lockjaw, slado. Don't think about it. Just do it.

    Or the sky will fall on you.

    Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket.

    Parent

    Edgar? (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:51:50 AM EST
    What does any of that have to do with his sentece?

    Fitzmas didn't happen and this whole affair was overdone because of the feelings you are indicating in your post.   He does not deserve years in prison for crimes against humanity as you seem to indicate.

    He lied to a grand jury about a crime that didn't happen or could not be proven.  That's it.   The rest is unhappy Fitzmas residue.

    Parent

    No, slado. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    Even you are not that stupid. Nor are your pretensions of stupidity anything other that transparent. They don't fool anyone. Not even you.

    Libby lied to a grand jury about a crime that happened to obstruct the FBI investigation so that the crime could not be proven.

    You, imo, lie if you claim not to understand that.

    I have more faith in your capacity for understanding than you pretend not to have, slado.

    Parent

    I appreciate you thoughts... (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    but I disagree.

    We can disagree and not call eachother stupid.

    Libby IMHO lied to protect the administration politically.  This was stupid IMHO becasue the press had already judged them guilty and he should have just come clean about discussing Plame etc... and that their intention was to harm Wilson because he deserved it.

    That's my opinion.  I'm biased.   So are you so lets agree to disagree.

    I don't think they outed Plame to get back at Wilson.  I think they wanted to discredit Wilso by pointing out his wife got him the job because she worked at the CIA.   The CIA by the way should have know better then letting the husband of a "covert" agent write OP-Ed's in an international newspaper or she/he should have known better.   That's what started this whole mess.

    They opened themselves up to this attack and she was outed by Armitage and according to everything I've read it was common knowledge amoung the beltway insiders and reporters that she was the wife of Joe Wilson and worked at the CIA.  

    I don't buy the cabal theory that Cheney/Libby intentionally outed her in revenge.   They wanted to show that Wilson was a carrer diplomat who was only sent to Niger because the wife got him the job, that he lied about what he found etc...  this whole idea of a grand conspiracy is far fetched and unproven.

    Agree to disagree.

    Parent

    Slado, pay close attention here. (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    I didn't call you stupid.

    I said you are not that stupid. Nor are your pretensions of stupidity anything other that transparent. They don't fool anyone. Not even you.

    Libby lied to a grand jury about a crime that happened to obstruct the FBI investigation so that the crime could not be proven.

    You, imo, lie if you claim not to understand that.

    I have more faith in your capacity for understanding than you pretend not to have, slado.

    Are you, like ppj, going to argue that your capacity for understanding is as limited as you pretend it is? Or are you saying that it is as limited as you pretend?

    Your choice, slado.

    Parent

    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    but I think we are aguing past eachother.

    I don't think libby commited the crime that he was investigated for...nor do I believe anyone in the administration did.

    I think they tried to politically harm Wilson by pointing out percieved problems with his Op-Ed and that he was only their because of his wife.

    Armitage and Novak outed Plame.   That is not in doubt.   I don't believe there was a conspiracy to out her only one to discredit Wilson.

    Libby should have admitted that they were going after Wilson politically and not lied to the grand jury.   He chose not to IMHO for political reasons not because he was hiding a crime.   You smell blood or see smoke and that is a reasonable assumption but not one I believe so we disagree.

    We'll never know the truth so we're forced to assume based on our assumptions and ours differ.

    BTD is right to claim that Libby was tried fair and square and shouldn't be pardoned because a real crime was comitted.  I have sympothy for Libby because I'm partisan but it won't cause me to loose sleep if he fulfills his full sentence which we all know he wont one way or the other.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    I don't think libby commited the crime that he was investigated for.

    A judge and jury disagree with you. Tough break.

    Parent

    You ignored my question, slado. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    Are you, like ppj, going to argue that your capacity for understanding is as limited as you pretend it is? Or are you saying that it is not as limited as you pretend?

    Parent
    Terrific comment (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:12:13 PM EST
    Edger, I am not sure why you are berating Slado on this one.

    Parent
    For this from his comment. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    I don't think libby commited the crime that he was investigated for...
    .....
    BTD is right to claim that Libby was tried fair and square and shouldn't be pardoned because a real crime was comitted.

    He thinks Libby was tried fairly? Yet he thinks Libby, who was convicted because he lied, was not the liar?

    Parent

    But E (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:39:21 PM EST
    Investigation do not begin seeking perjury charges.

    Libby committed crimes DURING during the investigation of the Plamne outing.

    We do not know if he or anyone else violated the IIPA because Libby obstructed justice.

    But that is what the system contemplates. It is why the Guidelines allow for cross-referencing to the sentencing of the underlying crime when obstruction of justice has been proven.

    Parent

    Yes, of course (none / 0) (#137)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    But Fitz was forced in the course of his investigation to add (be sidetracked into) another investigation to determine if there was enough evidence in his opinion to charge Libby with perjury and obstruction, when he realized that Libby was purposefully blocking his original investigation.

    Slado says: "I don't think libby commited the crime that he was investigated for...", in full knowledge that Libby was investigated for exactly the crime he was convicted of. He is trying to imply that because Libby was not the target of the original investigation he is innocent because no crime was proven - because Libby blocked the investigation.

    IOW, he is trying to divert to using the same excusing that Cohen and the rest of them use to the "there was no underlying crime" BS.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    you miss that Saldo's argument is actually plausible. I've argued something similar.

    Consider for a moment WHY Libby lied and Armitage and Fleischer did not.

    They came clean because they felt they could convince Fitzgerald that they did not know Plame was covert. And they have a good piece of evidence for that - the Grossman memo which is incredibly incorrect. Also, Armitage and Fleischer did not initiate the Wilson/Plame Vendetta, that was Cheney.

    Bush siad he would fire the leakers and Libby had to cover for Cheney.

    It is all about Cheney in the end.

    Which makes me think of one thing I would go for, if it was possible, letting Cheney serve Libby's sentence.

    Parent

    A terrific suggestion. Please post. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    asdf (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:25:22 PM EST
    QUOTATION: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
    ATTRIBUTION: Bible: New Testament Jesus, in John, 15:13.

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    Sure. I'm in. Who do I have to kill? ;-)

    Parent
    Metaphorically speaking, of course. :-) (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    Edger - You can do better (1.00 / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:23:48 PM EST
    But Fitz was forced in the course of his investigation to add (be sidetracked into) another investigation to determine if there was enough evidence in his opinion to charge Libby with perjury and obstruction, when he realized that Libby was purposefully blocking his original investigation

    Let me see. Fitzgerald had all the resources of the Federal government behind him, and he was forced to stop the investigation...

    Uh huh. Sure.


    Parent

    You see, ppj (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    This is an example once again of your inability or unwillingness to be honest.

    You know better, I believe, than you let on. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just playing dumb.

    If you are, you'll admit the dishonesty of your comment.

    If you're not, you won't.

    Parent

    What did I miss, if anything? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    Why do you continue to make such ad hominem attacks as this??

    Are you, like ppj, going to argue that your capacity for understanding is as limited as you pretend it is? Or are you saying that it is as limited as you pretend?

    If you want to argue the point, why not do so? That you do not leads me to believe that I have found a soft spot, and the comment by Tom M bolsters my belief.

    Parent

    Toss Up (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:11:30 PM EST
    .....and the comment by Tom M bolsters my belief.
    As Does it Ours about your honesty and intelligence.

    Parent
    I repeatedy have ppj. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    You have repeatedly ignored it.

    Parent
    simplified (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by manys on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    He created a smaller crime to cover up for a larger one. Whether this constitutes "cabal" thinking or not is irrelevant because the smaller crime is what he bargained for. He lost the gambit. Arguing that smaller crimes don't exist in the context of larger ones is fanciful at best.

    If the police are searching your neighborhood for a murderer and they find pot plants in your backyard, does that make cultivating marijuana legal because you aren't then accused of murder?

    Parent

    Thanks BTD (none / 0) (#147)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    You got my argument right for the most part and Edgar is missing my point.

    Libby is guilty of lying to a grand jury and obstruction.  Period end of story.  He was rightly convicted.  As I said much earlier I would be a hypocrite if I felt he wasn't guilty when I believe Clinton, Martha and others that have lied to grand jury's were also guilty.

    That was not the initial reason for the investigation.   We all know that Fitz could though he, Cheney and others in the adminsistration outed Plame for payback.   Maybe he's right and you're right but I don't believe so.

    IMHO I think you and others who disagree with the administration give it too much credit in terms of them orchestrating some great cabal to decieve the american people or trick them into supporting the war and then justifying it.  Example your Plame theory.  IMHO they believe what they are doing is right so they don't need to play tricks.   They might be wrong ( I don't think they are) but that is a matter of opinion.

    I think they simply tried to discredit Wilson for political reasons and then when the Novak story broke they correctly assumed they would be drawn itno it.   Rather then come clean that they were up to hard ball politics (rightly I might add) they denied even knowing anything about it.   Something they repeatedly do on all types of issues for some unkown reason and one of the things I hate about the Bush team.  

    Eventually when Fitz let them know that he was serious most in the administration co-operated (Rove etc...) but it was too late for Libby based on his initial testimony.

    We'll never know if there was a closed door meeting that had the simple instructions given to out Plame for revenge.  I find it highly doubtful but it is possible.   Obviously Fitz believes it.

    We'll also never know who the second shooter was.  We can agree to disagree on that too.

    Instead we are left with partisan assumptions and mine differ from yours.

    Can I explain it any better?

    Parent

    I did miss your point yes. Apologies. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    Thanks for the expansion. Plausible, if they believe what they are doing is right.

    If they do believe so, why then the need to lie and invent claims for which there was no evidence?

    In my experience people who lie do so because they have something to hide.

    Parent

    I see a conspiracy of 2 (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    Cheney and Libby, who then enlisted as many as they could to spread the tale.

    Not too many bit.

    As for whether either of them knew Plame was covert, I don't know. Obviously, they tried to cover up their involvement on the issue though.

    Parent

    At ::least:: two. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:09:16 PM EST
    Reasons For Waxman Investigation Of Iraq Invasion Justifications Were Known More Than A Year Ago
    The memo does not say that the State Department alerted the White House on January 12, 2003, about the bogus uranium claims.

    But the memo's author, Carl Ford, said in a previous interview that he has no doubt the State Department's reservations about the Niger intelligence made their way to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    One high-ranking State Department official said that when the department's analysts briefed Colin Powell about the Niger forgeries, Powell met with former Director of the CIA George Tenet and shared that information with him.

    Tenet then told Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the uranium claims were "dubious," according to current and former State Department and CIA officials who have direct knowledge of what Tenet discussed with the White House at the time.

    The White House has long maintained that they were never briefed about the State Department's or the CIA's concerns related to the Niger uranium claims.

    "I refuse to believe that the findings of a four-star general and an envoy the CIA sent to Niger to personally investigate the accuracy of the intelligence, as well as our own research at the State Department, never got into the hands of President Bush or Vice President Cheney. I don't buy it," said a high-ranking State Department official. "Saying that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was all it took, as far as I'm concerned, to convince the House to support the war. The American people too. I believe removing Saddam Hussein was right and just. But the intelligence that was used to state the case wasn't."

    Ex-CIA Chief George Tenet Says He Warned Hadley That Bush Was Lying
    George Tenet told former Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in October 2002 that allegations about Iraq's attempt to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger should immediately be removed from a speech President Bush was to give in Cincinnati. Tenet told Hadley that the intelligence was unreliable.


    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:35:54 PM EST
    The issue remains this.

    Bush was told that the claim that Iraq had purchased yellow cake was false.

    Not even Wilson had said that Iraq had not TRIED, which is what Bush said. In fact, Wilson told the CIA that they had tried.

    Link

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," ...   The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.



    Parent
    Read my comment again. (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:44:47 PM EST
    Then read your reply again.

    If you are honest with yourself you'll admit that your comment is not made in good faith or to have a reasonable discussion. It is simply part of your endless repetition of talking points in ignorance of evidence and fact presented to you. IOW, it is simple minded trolling.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#155)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 06:13:41 PM EST
    core was these guys though, and they all did it.

    Parent
    Accepted (none / 0) (#205)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    Edgar I fully understand your preception that something smells fishy.

    It's the thing I hate most about this administration (I don't hate much but I hate this).   I hated it when the Clintons did it and I hate it when Bush does it.   In politics you screw up and when you do you just need to come clean and make it a non issue.   Instead this administration repeatedly invokes executive privledge, tells half truths etc... in order to minimize short term political consequences.  

    I gues their rationale is the other team isn't fighting fair so we won't either but the other team isn't in the Whitehouse and they won't be held to the standard you are so just stop it. (The AG scandal is the same pattern)  Get them in other ways but their constant wrangling with the press and congressional democrats just makes them look silly IMHO and opens them up (and rightly so) to the criticism and feelings you and BTD expressed.

    Libby should have known better.  Maybe he did what you suppose but again we'll never know and his avasivness and political horseplay should be a lesson to future politicians that the games should stop when you enter the courthouse.  

    Parent

    Slado, thanks. (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    I agree with
    Libby should have known better.  Maybe he did what you suppose but again we'll never know
    this goes to the heart of the matter.

    Actually we do know. Covert CIA agent Valerie Plame was outed. The 'underlying crime' was committed.

    The reason we'll never know who committed the crime is because Libby lied to the FBI and obstructed Fitz' investigation. So far all logical reasoning and inferences based on facts known point to Cheney as the criminal. At, least. Probably Bush and Rove as well, imo.

    BTD thinks a conspiracy of 2 - Libby & Cheney. It think it's a much larger conspiracy. And I think these guys joke about it occasionally when they get together. I think in their minds the only crime is getting caught.

    So it's much more serious than just 'political horseplay'.

    You know my opinions of these guys. The Bush Administration has been an organized criminal conspiracy since before the 2000 election, and a radical terrorist organization since.

    Parent

    He was found guilty of 2 counts of perjury (4.75 / 4) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:53:08 AM EST
    and two counts of obstruction of justice.

    But I am glad that you agree with me on this:

    Libby is not guilty of anything more then lying to a prosecuter for political gain.
    Is he guilty of that?  I believe so.

    that Cheney sprung Libby into action is obvious to me but not provable in court because Libby obstructed justice.

    A cabal of 2 is what I believe is at the heart of this.

    Parent

    Ms. Plame's covertiness (1.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Tom Maguire on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    As to whether the CIA has actually confirmed that Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the IIPA, a few data points are missing from the above:

    1.  Anyone with critical reading skills could see through Waxman's fan dance at his hearing.  However, since the taget audience roared their approval, Fitzgerald repeated it with his sentencing memorandum which included the CIA employment summary claiming Ms. Plame was covert.

    It was only when the defense responded a few days later that we got this:

    The summary described above was provided to the defense along with a companion summary that defined a "covert" CIA employee as a "CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee."4 It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines "covert agent" differently.

    Incredibly, that defense caveat did not get nearly the play as the original Fitzgerald assertion.

    2.  I find the notion that the agency's own construction of a statute gets weight to be very thought-provoking.  Who hear is familiar with the Valerie Plame Relief Act?  Briefly, she get into a back-and-forth with the CIA Human Resources people becasue, although she had her twenty years of service she was not eligible for a pension until age 55.  Yawn.

    However, in the course of offering Congressional legislation to get her an immediate pension, this letter was read into the Congressional record (I quote the Times here):

    The letter said that Ms. Wilson had worked for the government since Nov. 9, 1985, for a total of "20 years, 7 days," including "six years, one month and 29 days of overseas service."

    Interesting - her classified personnel file includes a tracking of her overseas service for purposes of adjusting her pension.  Yet neither the CIA summary nor Fitzgerald himself chose to mention the last date for which the CIA formally credited her with service abroad.  Why not?  Mightn't one expect that the offical CIA position on her last date of service abroad would carry some weight in the conversation about her IIPA status?  Why conceal that good news? (Unless it wasn't good news?  Nah.)

    3.  Following the Waxman fan dance (where he claimed Ms. Plame was covert per CIA parlance but never offered the news that, having studied her file, the CIA COunsel had concluded she was covert per the IIPA, Rep. Hoekstra wrote to the CIA COunsel asking for their opinion.  This is from April 2007:

    On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

    Surprisingly, that Novak column got little attention either.

    As best I can tell, the CIA Counsel has never opined that Ms. Plame was covered by the IIPA.  Further, when given a chance to cite her formal service abroad pension record as supporting evidence, the CIA ducked.  For my money, that suggests that maybe the CIA is deliberately blowing smoke on this point.  Obviously, the fair weather critical thinkkers of the left have a different view.

    Oh, last thought - the CIA criminal referral (which came up in a letter to John Conyers) was for an unauthorized disclosure of classified info, not the outing of a covert agent - no help there.

    But really - if anyone can present anything other than a faith-based initiative that she was covert pe rthe IIPA, please.  But no one in authority, including people in a position to have a well-informed opinion, has said so.

    because i HAVE A DARK KEART. LET ME TOSS IN SOME HEARING EXCERPTS:

    MS. PLAME WILSON: For those of us that were undercover in the CIA, we tended to use "covert" or "undercover" interchangeably. I'm not -- we typically would not say of ourselves we were in a "classified" position. You're kind of undercover or overt employees.

    Great to know, but not helpful for IIPA purposes.  More:

    REP. DAVIS: The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent, which has a specific definition under the act. Did anyone ever tell you that you were so designated?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: I'm not a lawyer.

    REP. DAVIS: That's why I asked if they told you. I'm not asking for your interpretation.

    MS. PLAME WILSON: No, no. But I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years.

    REP. DAVIS: I'm not arguing with that. What I'm asking is, for purposes of the act -- and maybe this just never occurred to you or anybody else at the time -- but did anybody say that you were so designated under the act? Or was this just after it came to fact?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: No, no one told me that.

    So she has no authoritative legal assurance either.  fascinating.

    semantics. (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    Semantics???

    Your last defense crumbles....

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    Not mine.

    Parent
    As Walton pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    If Libby wanted an evidentiary hearing on this at sentencing, he should have asked for it.

    Though it seems to me that would have been a waste of time. I am no expert on crossreferencing and/or  sentencing guidelines, but I understand the fact of whether there would have been a prosecution or not on the IIPA would not be relevant to cross referencing on obstruction charges.

    Do you think it is relevant to pardon for Libby's obstruction and perjury? I do not see how.

    As so many are so fond of saying, he was not tried for violating the IIPA.

    The 30 months he is charged with come from the Sentencing Guidelines.  

    Parent

    Tom M (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    Thanks...

    Very instructive and informative...not to forget "realty based."

    eh, Edger??

    Parent

    edger, squeaky, sailor, jondee...et al (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    As I noted before you continue to want to marginalize people you disagree with, and have so stated. However, calling people "liars" is, at best, bad taste unless tou can make a specific point and prove the charge.

    But please feel free to call me a liar. It does define the differences between us.

    I note that you, squeaky, jondee or sailor do not try and refute any point I have made. Instead you just endlessly claim that Libby was convicted as if that ended the argument.

    If it did we wouldn't have people writing columns about it, each side trying to prove a point. The Left trying to justify a political prosecution, the Right trying to show it wrong and calling for a pardon.

    I find several things about all of this amusing.

    First I find the concept of a group of people who are supposedly dedicated to free speech opposing a discussion about a jury's verdict almost off the chart. It does, of course, demonstrate that the issue isn't free speech, but the desire to suppress free speech, and I think it shows a weakness in the Left's position.

    So, in an attempt at good humor, I'll revisit a point I have made, and see who wants to comment.

    1. The target was Cheney. Fitzgerald himself has said a cloud exists over the VP's office.

    2. The attack vehicle was the supposed outing of a supposedly covert CIA.

    3. The motive for the outing was the article written by Mr. Wilson and his assignment to go to Niger by Mrs. Wilson.

    4. It is claimed that, if we believe Flesicher, Libby told him that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA and that this was hush-hush. Supposedly this proves that Libby knew she was covert..

    5. Flesicher told three others...

    Yet Flesicher wasn't prosecuted. If he was told the information was hush-hush, and if that meant she was covert, he had to have known she was covert.

    But yet he wasn't prosecuted. Evidently they believed him when he said he didn't know she was covert.

    Why?? I believe that since he wasn't connected to the VP, he made a better witness than a defendent.

    And if they believed that he didn't know, what difference does it make if Libby did, or did not tell him she was "hush hush." If she wasn't covert, what crime has been committed???

    Why is Libby's denial and arguably bad memory worthy of a second glance??

    Because Libby worked for the VP.

    Here is your fundamental problem (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:23:29 PM EST
    The Left trying to justify a political prosecution, the Right trying to show it wrong and calling for a pardon.

    Political how? The CIA was playing politics when IT made a criminal referral to the Justice Department? Is that your theory?

    James Comey was "politically motivated?" Patrick Fitzgerald was politically motivated?

    Reggie Walton was poltically motivated?

    See, those statements may not be lies, but they surely are grossly false.

    Comey was named by the Bush Administration to his post. Fitzgersald was named US Attorney for Chicago by the Bush Administration. Reggise Walton was named to the federal bench by Bush.

    When you make such grossly false and obviously false statements it is not surprising that you get called a liar.

    The alternative is that your lack of respects for the facts is due to deficiencies in your intellect or your character.

    I take the charitable view that the problem is your intellect.

    Parent

    With respect, I think you're too kind. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    I think he wants everyone to think the problem is his intellect. Because imo, his purpose is to disrupt and divert attention away from the issues at hand, and cause people to waste their time refuting him.

    ....
    But let's ask him.

    PPJ? Are you smarter than you appear to be?

    Parent

    Well then (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:59:12 PM EST
    the problem is STILL his intellect as all he has done is allowed us to bring into sharp relief the speciousness of the argument he is supposed tio be advocating for.

    I wrote before that if he was on my side I would ask to please shut up.

    Parent

    Well... yes... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    although we spent probably as much or more time talking about him that about Cohen and the inside the beltway media manipulations and lies and excusings of corruption... no?

    Maybe you're right. Maybe he's here precisely because of his intellectual deficiencies?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    Do you still beat your wife??

    Do you even have one??

    ;-)

    Can you address a point without a personal attack?


    Parent

    ppj (1.00 / 0) (#173)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:06:46 PM EST
    Do you still beat your wife?? is a loaded question that assumes the questionee has beat his wife in the past, therefore ANY answer is an admission of guilt.

    That wasn't what I asked you, however.

    I asked you: "Are you smarter than you appear to be?"

    Unless you are not smarter than you appear to be you'll see immediately that my question assumes that you are smart.

    Why you would see the assumption that you are smart as a personal attack is a mystery to me.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    Actually edger that is what is known as an ad homenim attack.

    Since you apparently think ad hominem attacks are clever responses to arguments you can refute, I will let the audience be the judge of intelligence.

    Parent

    and BTW (1.00 / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:15:18 PM EST
    hopefully subject audience will not include typing as a mesure...

    That is, of course, "arguments you can not refute.."

    Or perhaps you can. I invite you to try.

    Parent

    Well, ppj (none / 0) (#177)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    One more time, though I'm not hopeful.

    Why you would see the assumption that you are smart as a personal attack is a mystery to me.

    Am I making a bad assumption? I must admit I'm starting to think I may have.

    BTD seems to think you are intellectually deficient. Well, not seems to, if I recall correctly he does think so.

    I differed with him and said I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I think you are smarter than he thinks you are. At least I thought so. I'm having my doubts now though.

    Is BTD right? Did I make a bad assumption?

    Or am I right?

    Parent

    What do you think? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    ppj has a problem here, btw. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:31:28 PM EST
    If he doesn't answer my question he is smarter than he appears to be.

    If he does, he's not.

    Parent

    BTB (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:14:43 PM EST
    You make your point, but you just can't resist an ad hominem attack.

    I take the charitable view that the problem is your intellect.

    Since we supposedly are adults, why can't you make a point and let the audience decide??

    If you are right there is nothing I can do to defeat you.

    If you are wrong your useless attacks only make you look worse.

    The original "go after them" came from the Demos. This is hardly a new concept, the Repubs practiced it against Clinton, the Demos against Reagan.

    That doesn't make it right.

    I said the Left, not Fitzgerald. I see Fitzgerald as merely someone who got caught up in the details and came to believe that he was supposed to find something or be judged a failure. I would think no defense attorney would disagree that hasn't happened in other times, other places and other cases.

    I have no idea as to Comey's politcs and have made no claim thereof. He merely launched a missle.
    But based on his stand off with Card and Gonzales I see no love lost.

    I never claimed Walton was politcally motivated.

    Again I note that you seem to think that personal attacks bolster arguments.

    Having spent a career in business I can assure you that personal attacks only weaken those who try to do so to bolster claims.

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:06:18 PM EST
    Actually you can quote it as many times as you like, but it won't change the facts.

    whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

    Huh?? Can you explain to us why it shouldn't be proved??

    Please remember that Flesicher gave the information re Mrs. Wilson two separate times to three reporters. He claims to have been told by Libby that she worked for the CIA but it was hush-hush.

    I would think that Flesicher was indictable if she was actually covert.

    Maybe the fact that he didn't work for Cheney is the answer to my question.

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:05:18 AM EST
    Perhaps prosecution of a given case wouldn't serve the cause of justice, or cost too much in terms of the results from such a prosecution.  Any competent ADA would tell you that.

    The problem is this. This wasn't about crimes in the local county courthouse, supposedly this led all the way to the office of the Vice President.

    Yet you plead it would cost too much?? Or that justice wouldn't be served?

    "Prosecutors normally insist on an informal account of what a witness will say before agreeing to such a deal. It's known in legal circles as a proffer, and Fitzgerald said [in court] he never got one from Fleischer."

    So Fitzgerald put a witness on the stand and didn't know what the witness was going to say??

    Stranger and stranger.

    Parent

    it's not bad taste ... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:01:25 PM EST
    ... to state facts. And we don't have to prove a charge, a jury did that. And everyone involved in the process was a bush appointee ... except the jury members.

    Libby lied. Lying is legal for a politician to do  ... unless they are under oath. Ari provided the most damning testimony, and 'loyal bushie' to the core.

    I note that you, squeaky, jondee or sailor do not try and refute any point I have made.
    They've all been refuted over and over, your willful ignorance of that fact and claiming otherwise pretty much refutes BTD's original reason for tolerating you.

    BTW, this has gone the way of all threads that ppj is involved in ... wait for it ... wait for it ... YES!

    Welcome to yet another psychotic episode of 'all about jim.'

    Parent

    ugh (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by manys on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    Welcome to yet another psychotic episode of 'all about jim.'

    Ugh, even I wouldn't sink low enough to compare real life to that show.

    Parent

    manys (1.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 07:22:06 PM EST
    Shorter - Neither sailor or I can refute Jim's points.

    Parent
    it's been refuted many times ... (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:21:21 PM EST
    ... even in this thread.

    So I think the question is answered, you are stupid AND a liar.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:54:22 AM EST
    So I think the question is answered, you are stupid AND a liar.

    What a wonderful person you are. Unable to refute an argument you retreat, yet again, into ad hominem attacks. Short one liners designed, evidently, to display your staggering lack of talent, especially in the area of language and the various social skills.

    Parent

    et al and good night (1.00 / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:39:06 PM EST
    Arthur has visited my fingers, exploiting my meager typing talents even more than usual. I would, as a friend said, claim that at one time I could type a 100 words a minute but a wonderful secretary stole that ability by doing it for me. Spell checkers got my spelling talents.

    So now, after doing the modern thing and blaming disease, other people and machines... I just note.

    Never, ever, never have I seen such a group of people who historically have had little trust in the government line up and do the "party speak" so very well.

    It makes me proud to be an Independent.

    jim, you really don't get it (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by conchita on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:14:55 AM EST
    this isn't about party, it is about preserving our legal system.  scooter libby lied to a grand jury, had his day/s in court, and was found guilty by a jury.  to pardon a lawyer and a political figure who has circumvented the process of justice would be a disservice to our legal system.

    Parent
    conchita (1.00 / 0) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    What I see is political in fighting and an individual getting chopped up for no good reason.

    Parent
    HHAHAH??? DA, are you ok?? (1.00 / 1) (#209)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    You seem to be incapable of believeing that I do not believe Libby lied.

    Please try very hard and I will return the favor by trying to believe you were upset when Clinton told us he didn't have sex, and what is....is..

    Both of which I have commented that I had no problem with. And both of which caused the country more harm than Libby's bad memory..

    Which is to say, "none."

    Parent

    jim, how easily you forget about the agents with (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by conchita on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    whom plame worked - the ones whose lives were endangered when she was outed.

    to respond, yes i was upset when clinton lied.  i thought what an idiot.  it was wrong for him to lie, but i did not think he should be impeached.  in his case, it was embarrassing, but no one's lives nor national security were compromised.  not the same in plame's case.  plame was working on nuclear proliferation.  can't help but wonder how much was lost by this political powerplay.  libby should go to jail for this.

    Parent

    conchita (1.00 / 0) (#216)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    If you really want to play the blame game, let's look at the following.

    1. Her husband gave an interview and then wrote and article that, if he is as smart as he appears, he had to know would attrack maximum attention to his wife.

    2. The CIA, had they really cared would have told Novak in very plain terms, DON'T.

    3. If she had cared she would not have agreed for him to  go to Niger.

    4. If the CIA had cared they would have made him sign an NDA.

    Finally, we have seen no proof that she was covert beyond "caims." See the link provided by Paul M.

    etc, etc, etc

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:45:53 AM EST
    And a good morning DA.

    The problem you, and many others on the Left, is that you think that an Independent supposedly opposes the WOT.

    I do not. Thus I have been left.... no pun intended...with Bush for the war and almost no one on the social issues. Indeed, the only social issues that I have seen with any significant changes has been Medicare Rx, done by Bush and the Repubs over the objections of the Demos.

    Even now we here nothing from the Demos of any substance.

    Indeed, the Demos have become one note Petes, and the tune they have played since January is the one we can expect to hear into the future, and it is the only song that their base will let the play.

    Their problem then is simple. They can go further Left, but not to the center. They had best hope then that the war in Iraq doesn't wind down, because when it does they will be left stranded on the wrong side of the river.

    DA You are further confused (none / 0) (#210)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    and show it by thinking that a Liberal is automatically a Leftie...

    Huge difference, and getting larger every day.

    Oh. Can you tell me what the Demos have done since January??? I mean besides naming varuious Federal Buildings after themselves and trying... no they actially did this.... convincing the terrorists that if they can just get control they will surrender immediately in Iraq.

    As for your dependence on polls, I read somewhere that your Senate Majority leader is around 18%...

    Wow and all that.

    Yadda yadda

    Parent

    You don't need cash. I'll let you lease it. (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:33:34 PM EST
    I hope your Link is better than this one provided by Edger a few days ago. Here's a taste.

    In cases where a serious insurgency cannot be managed, the state and its supporters might consider an approach designed to deliberately encourage the insurgency to mutate into something less dangerous such as an organized criminal organization. This is never desirable, but there may be rare instances where organized crime is less of a threat than sustained insurgency. Call this strategic methadone. [p.52]


    Parent
    covert agents (none / 0) (#136)
    by diogenes on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    If Libby leaked Plame's identity, the why wasn't he charged with that?  Presumably there was independent evidence beyond his own lies about not having done it.  
    Shouldn't Fitz have let the jury decide about Armitage--hey, maybe HE lied too about his "intent".  Oops- I forgot-the point was to indict someone who would lead to Cheney.

    Nothing like coming late (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    and knowing nothing.

    Obstruction of justice. Look it up. Maybe you;ll figure it out then.

    Parent

    I would hope that all prosecutors subscribe to (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    this standard, although apparently the Duke case DA didn't.  

    Parent