Libby has been indicted

5 counts, 2 perjury, 2 false statements, one obstruction of justice

ABC NEWS

Let the games begin.

Oh, and he fell on his sword by resigning..

You have to wonder how many more... I'm glad they're are at least trying to get some of the corruption out. The arrogance of what they've done is just astounding.

Libby was not charged with illegally leaking CIA covert official Valerie Plame's name to the news media.

What don't these guys get about the fact that if you lie, you get in more trouble than if you just tell the truth. I mean, if he would have told the truth he'd be in a much better situation. One would think that people (on both sides) would learn from Nixon that the cover up is always worse than the crime.

Interesting that Cheney got the information on Plame "from the CIA" and gave it to Libby. Wonder what the story is. Why did he need information on her in the first place, if not to retaliate?

And remember, the *consequences* of the cover-up are worse than those for the crime alone. Nixon's team's crimes far outweighed the cover-up in seriousness, but it was the cover-up that clued people to the fact that something bad was going on, beyond a single burglary.

Likewise, it's turning out that this is tied to how the Administration sold the war. Those disclosures will be far more damaging than the attempts to shut Wilson up.

There are a few statements that support Wilson's version of events in there too.

'scapegoat, that's all he is.

the real sh*tbags will still stay there and continue the same game.

araczynski wrote:

'scapegoat, that's all he is.

the real sh*tbags will still stay there and continue the same game.

Hopefully he will smoke the rats out...

Oh wait..

The whole timeline of events on the indictment is interesting. I hope the prosecutor can prove it all.

And it is always about the lies and the cover-up that gets you screwed. But people forget that these people are so arrogant they believe that they will never get caught. That is why they believe they can cover up.

Libby lied about not committing a crime apparently. 2 years and a million dollars and all we get is an indictment of the chief of staff making inconsistent statements? Isn't this what the Clinton fiasco was over and people said that wasn't a big deal.

Lawyeron wrote:

Libby lied about not committing a crime apparently. 2 years and a million dollars and all we get is an indictment of the chief of staff making inconsistent statements? Isn't this what the Clinton fiasco was over and people said that wasn't a big deal.

I'm tempted to comment about the lack of seriousness of a BJ compared to this particular incident... but eh, not in the mood to play devil's advocate... but, imagine in Libby was caught getting a BJ... THEN the sh*t would hit the fans, neh?

Libby lied about not committing a crime apparently. 2 years and a million dollars and all we get is an indictment of the chief of staff making inconsistent statements? Isn't this what the Clinton fiasco was over and people said that wasn't a big deal.

What crime did Clinton lie about? What else was uncovered after what, 6 years and about 60 million dollars? His crime was a crime, but the event he lied about won't even get you thrown out of most churches.

This is much more like Watergate than Whitewater. And it's still not clear whether anyone will actually be charged with the crime. It is however clear that Libby is indeed charged with 5 felonies. Clinton, of course, was impeached for far less.

There could be more to come. And the overall question has not been erased - why exactly was Cheney's office so interested in revealing Valerie Plame's role in her husband's trip? I don't see them publicizing the work of any other CIA officers, for any reason.

And the house of cards starts to crumble...

What don't these guys get about the fact that if you lie, you get in more trouble than if you just tell the truth. I mean, if he would have told the truth he'd be in a much better situation. One would think that people (on both sides) would learn from Nixon that the cover up is always worse than the crime.

i dont know, how many cover ups do we NOT know about?

karmajay wrote:
What don't these guys get about the fact that if you lie, you get in more trouble than if you just tell the truth. I mean, if he would have told the truth he'd be in a much better situation. One would think that people (on both sides) would learn from Nixon that the cover up is always worse than the crime.

i dont know, how many cover ups do we NOT know about? :)

Best example that comes to mind was two oil spills, can't remember which companies were involved, but one involved nearly 3 or 4 times as much oil as the other. The big one, the company apologized, cleaned it up, done. The other, relatively smaller, but they tried to cover it up and clean it up covertly, and got in quite a bit of trouble, not to mention being ringed by the media.

I thought karl rove was going to be frogmarched out of the white house for treasonously outing a covert agent. No? sounds like the Fitzmas is a fitz-le.

Robear wrote:

And the overall question has not been erased - why exactly was Cheney's office so interested in revealing Valerie Plame's role in her husband's trip? I don't see them publicizing the work of any other CIA officers, for any reason.

I don't see any other CIA officers sending their husbands on secret missions that they lie about over and over again in the newspapers. if joe wilson was so interested in keeping his wifes CIA employment a secret he shouldn't have made so many people wonder how a lefty bush critic got the job to go to Niger.

Rat Boy wrote:

And the house of cards starts to crumble...

how is that going to happen?

I thought karl rove was going to be frogmarched out of the white house for treasonously outing a covert agent. No? sounds like the Fitzmas is a fitz-le.

Let's wait till this is over to decide. Things are still happening.

I don't see any other CIA officers sending their husbands on secret missions that they lie about over and over again in the newspapers. if joe wilson was so interested in keeping his wifes CIA employment a secret he shouldn't have made so many people wonder how a lefty bush critic got the job to go to Niger.

She didn't send him. That's been well-debunked. He hasn't lied; in fact, Fitzgerald made it clear that the forged documents were the basis for sending him in the first case, if you didn't notice that. He's not a "lefty", he's a registered Republican. And he was not a Bush critic until the Administration used discredited material the CIA kept out of his speeches for months to help gin up the case for war. Then, as Karl Rove and others involved have admitted, the White House went after him, purposely.

You act as if outing an agent who took five years to train and establish cover and handled a number of sources - and would have continued to do so in the future - is a reasonable thing to do. And the cover company she and other agents worked for was ruined. I think it's detestable, and none of this has yet told us why the White House felt it was appropriate to release this information to Novak and others. I could care less if Wilson lied his ass off - I'm relieved that he did not - but revealing the identity of a CIA officer is no-go territory for me, for personal reasons. There is no reason in the world for a White House official to consider leaking the identity of someone who was in Plame's situation. Period. That's a betrayal and to me it's no different from what Aldrich Ames did.

We've been over this and over it. Clearly we have different views. I wish you could at least agree that exposing people who work in covert ops is a bad idea, and a problem in and of itself. The question is not "Did Joe Wilson lie?", it's "Why did the White House expose a covert CIA agent and blow a cover company?" I'd hope you could agree that that is a serious question, and not a political one.

BobbyLaw wrote:

I don't see any other CIA officers sending their husbands on secret missions that they lie about over and over again in the newspapers. if joe wilson was so interested in keeping his wifes CIA employment a secret he shouldn't have made so many people wonder how a lefty bush critic got the job to go to Niger.

So its Wilson's fault that some members of the administration decided to mention to numerous reporters the fact that Wilson's wife is a CIA agent. And it is his fault that they were caught lying under oath about it.

I will compare this to Clinton: It was seen to be important to impeach him for lies under oath. Why is it not important to prosecute other people for lying under oath?

He hasn't lied; in fact, Fitzgerald made it clear that the forged documents were the basis for sending him in the first case, if you didn't notice that. He's not a "lefty", he's a registered Republican.

I hate to quibble but I believe Fitzgerald has no party affiliation.
From The Economist

Second, Mr Fitzgerald is no Ken Starr. Mr Fitzgerald is as apolitical as Mr Starr was partisan. When he registered to vote in New York, Mr Fitzgerald registered as an independent only to discover that the Independents were a political party, so he changed his registration to "no affiliation" (a label he kept when he moved to Chicago). He is an equal-opportunity prosecutor. In Illinois he is currently embroiled in two big corruption cases"”one directed against George Ryan, a former Republican governor, the other against various aides to Richard Daley, Chicago's Democratic mayor.

Pretty much agree with everything else though.

edit: after more coffee and a second reading, recognizies that it's merely a mistype on Robear's part.

Fripper wrote:
He hasn't lied; in fact, Fitzgerald made it clear that the forged documents were the basis for sending him in the first case, if you didn't notice that. He's not a "lefty", he's a registered Republican.

I hate to quibble but I believe Fitzgerald has no party affiliation.
From The Economist

Second, Mr Fitzgerald is no Ken Starr. Mr Fitzgerald is as apolitical as Mr Starr was partisan. When he registered to vote in New York, Mr Fitzgerald registered as an independent only to discover that the Independents were a political party, so he changed his registration to "no affiliation" (a label he kept when he moved to Chicago). He is an equal-opportunity prosecutor. In Illinois he is currently embroiled in two big corruption cases"”one directed against George Ryan, a former Republican governor, the other against various aides to Richard Daley, Chicago's Democratic mayor.

Pretty much agree with everything else though. ;)

Wilson, I think, not Fitzgerald.

Why would exposing the agent not be considered treason?

LeapingGnome wrote:

Why would exposing the agent not be considered treason?

It wouldn't fall under the technical/legal definition of treason, I believe. They weren't exposing the agent to overthrow the US government, but on the other hand it was part of a larger scheme to deceive both the public and the Congress in order to get support for the war on false pretenses. I don't know if that would qualify as treason or not; I don't think it would under the basic definition, but possibly under the spirit of the definition.

I hate to quibble but I believe Fitzgerald has no party affiliation.

My bad. I was referring to Wilson, not Fitzgerald.

I think it falls under the definition - "aid and comfort to your nation's enemies". Exposing secret operatives is certainly aiding enemies...

Robear wrote:

She didn't send him. That's been well-debunked.

according to the indictment: libby was informed by the undersecretary of state that state dept personnel said wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip and a senior CIA officer told Libby wilson's wife was respinsible for sending him on the trip. The senate intelligence report supports that both CIA and State dept people believed Wilson's wife was responisible for him going to Niger. According to the NY Times: Cheney asked George Tenet about Wilson after the op-ed and Tenet told him that Wilson's wife worked at the agency.

I think your arguing nitpicks instead of the reality of what happened. The senate report, the indictment and reporting by major news outlets all support that wilson's wife was responsible or involved in sending him to Niger. the indictment makes it clear that everyone in govt who answered questions about Wilson for Libby and Cheney told them that Plame worked at the CIA and she was involved in getting him sent to Niger. Thats not debunked to me thats verified.

Robear wrote:

He hasn't lied; in fact, Fitzgerald made it clear that the forged documents were the basis for sending him in the first case

you are talking about the forged documents that Wilson claimed to have seen before they were even available to the US? that's a lie right there. he claimed that Bush's claim that Saddam was looking for uranium wasn't supported when his own findings supported it. that's a lie. he said his wife had nothing to do with his trip when the indictment and the senate report clearly shows she was. that's a lie.

Robear wrote:

You act as if outing an agent who took five years to train and establish cover and handled a number of sources - and would have continued to do so in the future - is a reasonable thing to do. And the cover company she and other agents worked for was ruined. I think it's detestable, and none of this has yet told us why the White House felt it was appropriate to release this information to Novak and others.

libby didn't out anyone. Novak outed plame and he never talked to Novak. Rove did but Novak already knew about plame by then. so who leaked to Novak? it may not have even been someone in the White House. I assume Fitzgerald knows since Novak cooperated, but it obviously wasn't a crime to do so since that person is free and clear. I don't know what you find so detestable. there's no evidence that anyone who talked about wilson's wife knew she her employment was classified and there was good reason to believe it wouldn't have been given how sloppy she handled her cover. there's nothing detestable about telling someone that a person works at the CIA.

i don't see what you find so hard to understand. wilson made claims that the white house considered untrue. he claimed that his trip originated with a request from the VP and that Cheney must have known Wilson's findings which wasn't true. the white house asked around to find out how an unqualified bush critic got the job and found out that his wife got it for him, and even if you dispute that it is definately what they thought at the time. reporters asked the White House about Wilson and they repeated that story to reporters, as they should have. saying wilson got the job because of his wife may have been a cheap shot but once Wilson stared lying he made his own credibility fair game.

Robear wrote:

There is no reason in the world for a White House official to consider leaking the identity of someone who was in Plame's situation. Period. That's a betrayal and to me it's no different from what Aldrich Ames did.

aldrich ames knew he was compromising covert agents stationed around the world. libby and rove mentioned that someone who drove to langley every day worked at the CIA. they had no reason to think she was covert, since no covert agent would commute to langley and work a desk there and expect to maintain cover. if they didn't know she was covert they didn't absolutely nothing wrong. also the la times reported that Plame had already likely been outed by Ames and that's one reason why she was no longer covert and working a desk.

Robear wrote:

I wish you could at least agree that exposing people who work in covert ops is a bad idea, and a problem in and of itself. The question is not "Did Joe Wilson lie?", it's "Why did the White House expose a covert CIA agent and blow a cover company?" I'd hope you could agree that that is a serious question, and not a political one.

I'll agree that exposing covert agents is bad. you should agree that Plame wasnt covert. the 1982 law supposedly in play here makes that clear. the fact that she was driving to langley every day, the fact that she had been back in the US and not overseas for more than 5 years, the reporting that she had already likely been outed by Ames makes and the fact that cia and state were telling other administration officials that she worked a desk at langley all make that clear.

also novak blew her cover company without any help since it was listed on her $1000 donation to Al Gore in 2000. "registered republican" Wilson donated $2000 to Gore but had to take $1000 back since it was over the limit.

Robear wrote:

Let's wait till this is over to decide. Things are still happening.

true Karl Rove could be indicted for not cooperating fully with investigators. that would be a blow for Bush but it won't help the anti war argument. Fitzgerald knows Plame's status. he knows who talked to who else about it and when. the whole point of the indictment is that libby's statements don't jive with what fitz knows happened. if knowing all the facts, he thought anybody intentionally blew Plame's cover he would have indicted for that. if there was a conspiracy he would have indicted for that. he didn't and its over. and anyone who thinks a trial will hurt the administration by revealing some sinister plot is fooling themself.

Whatever. I'm reading stuff I addressed a long time ago. I don't see the need to go over it again. We disagree; I don't see anything from Fitzgerald that contradicts my previous position, I see support for it. You draw the same conclusion for your points - okay, that's your take. Let's wait until this mess is over, because as Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out, it's not over yet.

I had something cut out of my hand and with 4 stitches and the anesthetic wearing off, I'm not inclined to type forever to rehash an old argument. No offense intended Bobby.

Ouch! What happened to your hand?

Pyrogenic Granuloma. It seems to be easier to type this afternoon, for which I am thankful. Shifting gears in the car is no picnic right now.

It was right on top of the knuckle of the middle finger on my dominant hand, so it's a bit of an inconvenience. I think by Friday or so it'll be feeling much more normal, but for now I'll settle for just small jabs of pain as I type, rather than yesterday's "omfg" moments.

Bobby is repeating claims that have been widely addressed in the press, some strong, some dubious. The question arises - if his position is true, why did the CIA ask for an independent prosecutor? After all, to hear him tell it, there was no crime committed. Clearly that's wrong. Fitzgerald stated right at the start of his statement that yes, a crime was committed.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...

The rest of the statement he made is pretty damning for Libby, who denied repeatedly that he even knew who Wilson's wife was, when in fact he'd been responsible for passing that information around, in apparent retaliation for Ambassador Wilson's comments in the press. The chain that results in Novak's column originates with Libby, is the current state of our knowledge.

As for the individual points, I'll stand by my "nitpicks" from the earlier threads. I will note though that there are other crimes involved in discussing classified information with people with no "need to know". I'll also ask again - why was the office of the VP even interested in who Valerie Plame was? What possible reason could they have for wanting to know?

Also, as Fitzgerald himself said, it's not over. Bobby, you are judging this before it's done. Let's just relax and see what comes up.

What I find interesting is how many of these debunked right-wing attack methods against the investigation are being used in your arguments, BobbyLaw. Debunked in many cases by statements made in the past by people you might find to be shifting position now. "Flip-flopping", if you will.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that there are some points that need to be further explained if you wish to convince us to shift our view on this matter.

Here's some choice bits I'll even repost for convenience's sake:

CLAIM – FITZGERALD IS A "RUNAWAY PROSECUTOR": "I think it shows the danger of runaway prosecutors"…you have is a system that essentially creates a crime in the search of a nonexistent crime. And that looks unjust to me." [Charles Krauthammer, Fox News Sunday, 10/9/05]

FACT – BUSH SAID FITZGERALD WAS CONDUCTING A "VERY DIGNIFIED INVESTIGATION": "The special prosecutor is conducting a very serious investigation - he's doing it in a very dignified way." [President Bush, 10/11/05]

CLAIM "” LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NO BIG DEAL: "In today's Washington, as has been true for decades, classified information is leaked by many different players in any given policy fight in the government." [Weekly Standard, 10/24/05]

FACT – GEORGE H.W. BUSH SAID EXPOSING AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT WAS "THE MOST INSIDIOUS OF CRIMES": "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." [George H.W. Bush, Speech at CIA, 4/26/99; Video]

CLAIM – WILSON LIED ABOUT HIS TRIP TO NIGER: Former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman: "What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger." [CNN, 7/12/05]

FACT – WILSON NEVER SAID CHENEY PERSONALLY SENT HIM TO NIGER: Bloomberg reported, "Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president's office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney's questions. "˜The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office,' Wilson wrote." [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]

Farscry wrote:

What I find interesting is how many of these debunked right-wing attack methods against the investigation are being used in your arguments, BobbyLaw.

CLAIM – FITZGERALD IS A "RUNAWAY PROSECUTOR"

I have never argued this so i don't know why you are posting it to say my arguments have been debunked.

CLAIM "” LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NO BIG DEAL
FACT – GEORGE H.W. BUSH SAID EXPOSING AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT WAS "THE MOST INSIDIOUS OF CRIMES"

the fact debunking the claim is an opinion not a fact. do you think that anytime you disagree with someone you have to admit you are wrong if they quote GHW Bush's opinion? I don't and I doubt you do. anyway plame wasn't an undercover cia agent since undercover cia agents don't drive to the cia headquarters everyday.

CLAIM – WILSON LIED ABOUT HIS TRIP TO NIGER
FACT – WILSON NEVER SAID CHENEY PERSONALLY SENT HIM TO NIGER

in the list of things I wrote wilson lied about above I never mentioned this so I am not sure how it refutes anything.

Farscry wrote:

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that there are some points that need to be further explained if you wish to convince us to shift our view on this matter.

thats good I'm not automatically wrong but if your doubting my arguments based on canned talking points that have nothing to do with what I argued you probably won't have your views shifted anyways.

I don't and I doubt you do. anyway plame wasn't an undercover cia agent since undercover cia agents don't drive to the cia headquarters everyday.

Again, debatable... I've heard a LOT of conflicting statements on this one. Unless Plame herself came on the news and said what she was doing, which... she won't, this whole line of debate is bull. Exposing a CIA agent is exposing a CIA agent, END OF STORY. If she wasn't actively in the field, then she might have been working to coordinate agents. Maybe she had contacts from prior field work who now know who she is, so all the work she did previously is void. There's a lot of if's an maybe's here, but all I know is that the CIA is down an agent thanks to this, and that's wrong.

And, it's hardly even worth considering an opinion that says "leaking classified information is no big deal." The stuff is classified for a reason. You may not know the reason, but someone, somewhere does, and knows why it's supposed to be a secret, and ten bucks says it's a damn big deal to them.

Robear wrote:

The question arises - if his position is true, why did the CIA ask for an independent prosecutor?

because even though plame wasn't undercover she was still technically classified and public leaks of classified information trigger inverstigations automatically.

Robear wrote:

After all, to hear him tell it, there was no crime committed. Clearly that's wrong. Fitzgerald stated right at the start of his statement that yes, a crime was committed.

he didn't state any crime was committed except whats in the indictment. his quote you post doesn't state any crime has been committed. what crime are you saying he said was committed? whats the statute?

Robear wrote:

As for the individual points, I'll stand by my "nitpicks" from the earlier threads. I will note though that there are other crimes involved in discussing classified information with people with no "need to know".

not to get off topic but there was a post story today about secret detainee prisons the us has in other countries. this story obviously came from the leak of classified information. do you think whoever leaked this info should be prosecuted and reporters put in jail if they wont reveal their sources? if not is it just because the story hurts bush instead of helping him?

Robear wrote:

I'll also ask again - why was the office of the VP even interested in who Valerie Plame was?

the reports and indictment all tell us that the vp found out about plame because she was mentioned by eveyone who told them about wilson. libby and cheney asked who wilson was and how he got the job and cia, state and tenet all said his wife worked at cia and he got the job because of her involvement. if the numerous sources (wash post, ny times, senate intel report, indictment) that confirm that wilson's wife was involved in him getting the job don't convince you then I'm sure I can't. but if you believe what is obviously true then it answers your question.