PDA

View Full Version : Libby's Supporters, Proud to Support Treason?



Gayle in MD
06-07-2007, 09:54 AM
Apparently, we have quite a few Americans, some of them political figures, who think it is just fine for the Bush White House, including George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby, to reveal the identity of a Covert, NOC, CIA Agent, and thereby put at her life at risk, and the lives of all other NOC, CIA covert agents who are still overseas, and worked with her, in an effort to cover up their own lies, which were used to lie our country into a war, which has been an international disaster, at best.

The names of the treasonists supporters, who have written letters in Libby's behalf, have been kept secret, by request of Libby's Attorneys.

Fitzgerald's letter, written to the Judge, and in the record, regarding Libby's sentencing, found at the link below, not only confirms once again Ms. Plame's covert status, but also confirms the Special Prosecutors inability to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the involvement of at the least, Dick Cheney, and also, possibly, George Bush, in this most treasonous action. The one deleted passage, has been purported to have been leaked, and is said to make clear, Fitsgerald's personal conclusion that Libby's lies prevented full disclosure of the involvement of the Vice President.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/29/BL2007052901024.html

One can only wonder how those people from the Republican party, who still call themselves Republicans, can maintain any self-respect, knowing that they are in fact supporting a party which supports such treasonist behavior on the part of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and most likely, the President Of The United States Of America.

To stand up and be counted as one of those who would seek to support an effort to insure that Libby get away with obstructing the course of justice, which would have likely proven the guilt of the Vice President Of The United States Of America, in outing the identity of a covert, NOC CIA Agent, specializing in Weapons Of Mass Destruction, no less, yet maintain, that Clinton's lie about a private Sexual matter, was justification for ripping this country apart in a partisan witch hunt, to slander the president, and the office of the president, knowing full well, that the author of such activity, Newt Gingrich, was at the same time, involved in the same behavior, is truly beyond the rhelm of reasonable, accurate, correct, thinking ability.

Hence, I still maintain, that 25 to 28% of the people in this country are NUTS! And worse, for party purposes, support treason. And also, those who were stupid enough to believe the many liars who appeared in the media, in behalf of the neocon right wing fascists, and attempted to deny reality, namely, that Valarie Plame was not covert, or that no crime was committed, or that Libby should be premitted to avoid jail time, lay firmly within the 25 to 28% who are not only nutty, but worse, they are definately anti- American in their philosophies, and unable to destinguish fact, from reality, either by insanity, a leaning toward anti-American fascism, or blind partisanship.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
06-07-2007, 11:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
One can only wonder how those people from the Republican party, who still call themselves Republicans, can maintain any self-respect, knowing that they are in fact supporting a party which supports such treasonist behavior <hr /></blockquote> If you can prove their actions were treasonous (sp?) then put them in jail for treason until then you don't know what you are talking about.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
06-07-2007, 12:27 PM
Her name was leaked by Armitage and Libby committed no crime besides not being able to remember things that the reporters he talked to, that testified against him could remember either. And just to be fair about the 25 to 28%, the latest Washington Post-ABC poll says Bush's overall job-approval rating stands at 35 percent, unchanged from April. I am one of the 65 percent here. Also The public, by a 16-point margin, say they trust the Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq. In April, that margin was 25 percent in favor of the Democrats. It also said 39 percent approved of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April. You may be referring to the poll that said "Growing frustration with the performance of the Democratic Congress combined with widespread public pessimism over President Bush's temporary troop buildup in Iraq have left satisfaction with the overall direction of the country at its lowest point in more than a decade, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Among the results:

73 percent of Americans said the country is seriously off on the wrong track, the most gloomy expression of public sentiment since January 1996, when a face-off between then-President Clinton and a Republican Congress over the budget led to an extended shutdown of the federal government." But that would mean that you are saying not only are people nuts and support treason who support Bush, but also anyone who supports the Democratically controlled Congress are nuts and support treason also.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2007, 02:04 PM
More BS from you. You obviously didn't read the letter by Fitzgerald, nor did you watch the Valarie Plame testimony before the Senate Investigation Committee, or read the testimony reported on the trial.

Obstruction of Justice and purgery. Libby was convicted of both. Hence, he lied under oath, and Obstructed Justice, therefore, the real culprits, in the White House, escaped recieving their due. Fitzgerald makes that quite clear, as did the judge, and that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of his peers, who emerged from the court room frustrated that Cheney and Rove were spared by their fall guy, Libby. The facts of the case are such, that loss of memory, is not possible, and there is no question that Libby lied.

But, ofcourse, I'm sure you know more than the special prosecutor, the jury, and the judge.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-07-2007, 03:08 PM
I never said Plame wasn't covert. I'm questioning why Fitzgerald didn't go after and hasn't gone after the person who outed her, Richard Armitage. Throughout the trial, Fitzgerald insisted that Valerie Plame’s status was irrelevant and that the defense could not use her status in any way. But when it came time for sentencing,
Fitzgerald insisted that her status be considered, and that Mr. Libby be treated as if he’d violated the law he’d never even been charged with. Political witch hunt and Libby should be pardoned.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2007, 03:21 PM
Not true. Fitzgerald's opening statements, and the actual indictment, refer to Plame's covert status, for one thing, and for another, Armetage's conversation with Bob Woodward, did not lead to the public outing of Valarie Plame.

Everything regarding Libby's Obstruction of Justice and purgery CONVICTION, is in the proescutors letter to the judge. He clearly said there was a cloud over the Vice President, and he clearly said that he was unable to to prove his case, obviously against the Vice President, who was behind the outing, because Libby obstructed the investigation with his lies. Even the Jurors, indicated, that Libby was taking the fall for Cheney and Rove. The jurors, heard everything.

Oh, and BTW, when did you finally accept the fact that Valarie Plame was covert, and what do you think of those right-wing pundits who tried to make the case that she was not covert, and that no crime had been committed. The prosecutor, clearly states, that the investigation was obstructed by Libby's lies. Whom was Libby working for, and just whom was furious over wilson's op-ed. Only a state of permanent denial could suppose Libby, Rove, and Cheney, as being innocent.

Read the link.

Bobbyrx
06-08-2007, 03:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Not true. <font color="blue"> true </font color> Fitzgerald's opening statements, and the actual indictment, refer to Plame's covert status, <font color="blue">so what? The case was not about her status, it was about whether Libby lied. If they had proof that Libby intentionally outed a covert agent, then why didn't they go after him for that? </font color> for one thing, and for another, Armetage's conversation with Bob Woodward, did not lead to the public outing of Valarie Plame. <font color="blue"> You are correct, however Armitage's conversations with Robert Novak DID lead to it.....
Sounds like he was telling anyone who would listen and not with some by the way type comment. So why no charges?????? </font color>

Everything regarding Libby's Obstruction of Justice and purgery CONVICTION, is in the proescutors letter to the judge. He clearly said there was a cloud over the Vice President, and he clearly said that he was unable to to prove his case, obviously against the Vice President, who was behind the outing, because Libby obstructed the investigation with his lies. <font color="blue"> It obstructed nothing...he had no case against anyone for anything except what Libby was convicted of </font color> Even the Jurors, <font color="blue">some jurors </font color> indicated, that Libby was taking the fall for Cheney and Rove. The jurors, heard everything.

Oh, and BTW, when did you finally accept the fact that Valarie Plame was covert, <font color="blue"> I never said she was or was not, and obviously it doesn't matter because NO ONE is being procecuted for outing her </font color> and what do you think of those right-wing pundits who tried to make the case that she was not covert, and that no crime had been committed. <font color="blue">If a crime was committed then go after who did it </font color> The prosecutor, clearly states, that the investigation was obstructed by Libby's lies. <font color="blue">Libby supposedly lied about who and when he told about Plame 3 years ago. This in no way prevented Fitzgerald from going after anyone else. If someone committed murder and said "I didn't do it" I guess Fitzgerald would say "well he lied so I couldn't investigate anymore, but I know he did it" </font color> Whom was Libby working for, and just whom was furious over wilson's op-ed. <font color="blue"> proof,proof,proof...is there a recording of this conversation of someone being furious??? No just something someone wrote to sell a book that would not hold up in any court </font color> Only a state of permanent denial could suppose Libby, Rove, and Cheney, as being innocent.

<font color="blue"> Explain to me why they only went after Libby and I'll believe it was more than a political witch hunt </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
06-08-2007, 06:32 AM
I have a suggestion for you. Go to the C-Span website and click on the appropriate links. There you will find the information which will answer your questions. Not only Valarie Plame's testimony, along with varrifications from the Director of the CIA, but also a good deal of other information regarding this subject.

Since your post isn't rude, and thank you for that, I will offer this much. There are many who work in covert status, and actually work, at times, in the actual offices of the CIA. Of all who work there, only NOC agents travel overseas, without any protection. Non Official Cover, often means that they are in other countries, where they have set up maybe a fake corporation, or business, of some kind, and others, also NOC Agents, remain, after they leave, and return home. Noc Agents, have no official protection. They are, of all CIA agents, under Non Official Cover, and hence, have no diplomatic protection, and work under great risk to their safety. Many people were put at risk, including Valarie Plame, due to her cover being blown. These people are risking their lives, just as our troops do, to protect our country. Valarie was a WMD expert, and that had been her field for quite a number of years. It was her boss, who asked if she would feel her husband out about making the trip to Niger, after a great deal of harrassment from the Vice President's office, which was at that time digging for any little shred of inteol, which would promote their desire to invade Iraq, a decades long intention, BTW.

The way the law is written, one must know an agent's covert status, and knowingly out them. Also, only their offical boss, in their department, has full knowledge of their status. IOW, other people who work at the CIA, do not even know about people who work right next to them, what their official status might be.

Armetege, Knovak, Russart, the guy from Time Magazine, can't recall his name right now, and others from the White House, who worked in Rove and Cheney's offices, gave truthful testimony which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Libby lied. They all told the truth, from the beginning of the investigation, with statements to the FBI, and the Special Prosecutors Office. But, it was the Office of the Vice President, which led to the flurry of questions regarding Plame's position, and the Administration had in their posession a document, with her name, and a big red S. in front of her name. They definately knew, that Valarie Plame, was designated SECRET/NOC. They definately were the ONLY ones involved in this matter, who were angry, and wanted to discredit Joe Wilson's statements, by suggesting that he was sent to Niger on a junket, by his wife. Cheney's own handwriting, on either the article of Wilson's,
or an article about Wilson's article, show that he directed Libby in making such a suggestion, and others around that office, testified how angry Cheney was about it. It would also be reasonable to recall that at that time, Americans had been completely mislead about WMD's in Iraq, by this administration, and Bush, after recieving a go ahead from Congress, to go into Iraq, AFTER the inspections were completed, and IF they proved that there were WMD in Iraq, Bush, had thrown the inspectors out, AFTER Blix had stated that he did not think there were any there, but wanted more time, a few months, to prove it, unlike what was stated by Romney, yet another brillian Repub, who said that Saddam had thrown them out, BTW. And that the President, had included the phoney Niger intelligence, even though the CIA had told the White House, more than once, that the documents were laughable, not to be used in his SOTU Address. The White House lied, and said that British Intelligence, Niger, Saddam, Yellow cake,...etc...when the intel regarding the documents about that issue, had gone all around to many countries intelligence offices, and had already been determined in the International Intelligence Community, to be laughable.

If you wish to read several books written by Italian Reporters, which completely lay out this ridiculous claim, and also trace the phony documents straight back to the American Enterpise Institute, I will be happy to pm you the titles. The incident, has been documented also by the Bitish memos, stating that the Niger Documents were laughable, told the administration not to trust them, and also there are British memos stating that the Bush Administration was "Fixing Intelligence to match policy"

Valarie Plame testified, under oath, that she did not have the authority to send anyone, anywhere. There was an e-mail involved, and as I stated, you can learn all about that, but, the e-mail involved, was blown into something that it wasn't, and since then, the person in Valarie's office, who actually wrote the e-mail, also testified, about that, and cleared that whole matter up.

Armetege isn't, and wasn't, Valarie's boss. Armetege didn't lie. Novak didn't lie. Woodward didn't lie. Russart didn't lie. Judy Miller, once forced to tell what she knew, didn't lie. Only Scooter Libby, lied. A jury of twelve of his peers, and the Special Prosecutor, determined that he lied from the start to the FBI, and then lied about his own lies. The nature, and dates and times of his statements to other people prove that he was lying, to cover up for Cheney, at the least, and perhaps, Rove and Bush. They were all on AF1, together, along with Colin Powell, who had the document stating her Secret Covert Status. The very day after they arrived back in Washington, they began to put the wheels in motion, with their press lap dogs, such as Knovak, who has had a very long standing and close relationship with both Cheney and Rove, and Scooter and Cheney, with Judith Miller. Tim Russart, another former lap dog of the Administration, said from the start, that Libby lied, and that he did not reveal anything to him, or Rove, regarding Plame, because he didn't even know that she worked at the CIA. Miller, testified that Scooter told her about Plame, in her notebook, she said she had written Flame, during a long lunch, and you may recall, that Miller, lap dog of Cheney, had assisted the Administration by reporting false information about Iraq, WMD's, which was l;eaked to her from Cheney, and then Cheney, Rice, and others went, within twenty-four hours, on all the Sunday talk shows, yapping about WMD's in Iraq, and quoted Miller's article in the NY Times as proof, after having given her the into themselves. Connect the obvious dots, please.

Once into the investigation the Special Prosecutor, A Republican appointee, BTW, faced one road block after another to Cheney's true involvment, and Rove's true involvment, and two of those roadblocks were Scooter Libby's lies, and quite a number of deleted, or missing, e-mails from that time period, and is in fact, as we write, considering re-opening the entire case, due to the information which has come forth in the Gonzales matter, and the missing e-mails which have provided further cover for illegal White House/Gonzales/DOJ activities, was it five million, or five thousand missing e-mails <font color="red">??? </font color>

I predict, that if this administration decided to launch anything at all against Iran, these circumstances will definately be reopened, not only by the S.P., but by other investigative operations. The Special Prosecutor's statements, if you read them, show that he knows that Cheney put the wheels in motion which outed Valarie Plame, to get back at Joe Wilson, and that Cheney knew her status, as did Rove, and Libby, and that Libby, took the fall for Cheney, and for Rove.
As stated by the jury, after their verdict was rendered.


Now, also, there are quite a number of other statements, and evidence, which all point to this conclusion, but my suggestion, for you, is that since you don't believe most of what I write here, do the research. It's all there for anyone interested in more than just bashing people who write about documented evidence, simply because they don't like the messenger, or the message, or their party affiliation renders them unable to accept clear and simple facts, such as Valarie Plame Wilson WAS a Covert, NOC Agent, who went by the covert name, Valarie Plame, not Valarie Wilson. IOW, only one of the nutty 28%, who have consistantly gathered up lies, sucked up unreasonable information, spread by this Administration, and their propaganda channel, Fox News, and convoluted truth, and/or Republican pundits, like Victoria Tuengsing, (sp) Mary Matilin, and that old hag blond from that weekly right wing rag. Victoria, btw, made a complete fool of herself in her Senate Testimony, and then there's Hannity, who couldn't tell the truth if his balls were hooked up to a live wire, and all those who promoted lies to enhance their own comfort level with their past voting record, or protect their chosen party, need crayons!

Libby, obstructed justice, and hence, the case against Rove and Cheney, was obstructed by not only his lies, but by his refusal to cooperate, and the many missing e-mails, were of course, accidentally deleted, just as they were accidentally deleted in the case of Gonzales corrupting and politicising our entire Department Of Justice.

Try reading some books, my friend, and you will find that whether they are written by the right, or the left, the evidence is clear, that this administration had lied over and over, and they have broken the law, over and over, and don't ask me why they get away with it over and over, but one reason why, is because they had a blank check from a Republican majority, which has led to the deaths of 3,501 young Americans, and bacause wealthy Fascists have taken over our country.

Gayle in Md.
check out www.Capitalnews.org... (http://www.Capitalnews.org...)

Qtec
06-10-2007, 08:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why they only went after Libby and I'll believe it was more than a political witch hunt <hr /></blockquote>

They didn't go after Libby. They wanted to know who said what and when, but Libby was obstructing the investigation by not telling the truth. They had to prosecute him! He asked for it because Libby was the Sacrificial Lamb/ the Fall Guy- he was going to take the fall to save the WH.
[ lets see how many days he spends in jail!]

Its a fact that the Admin put Plame in the spotlight to divert attention to their own lies.
They pointed the finger at a CIA agent and basically said to ANY terrorist or enemy of the USA, "Here she is! Here is a covert USA CIA WMD specialist!"
Is that treason? Who knows. Its certainly cowardly and unpatriotic.............and they say they support the troops? Apparently not their spys!
Lets not forget that her husband was the USA Amb. in Iran. Any friends she had there would be being water-boarded within hours after her 'outing' as a spy.
Why did the Govt go to such lengths to protect the Pres?
GW's 16 words in his SOTU speech. He gave the impression that Iraq was 'recently' trying to attain yellowcake in order to arm an atomic bomb that he did not have. They were SO desperate for anything they could use against Saddam that they were reduced to offering as proof Docs that had already been shown to be fakes. Even the CIA ordered would not support these claims. That's why GW said,"British sources".


Honestly, if I said to you "I was recently in New York" , would you get the wrong impression if it turned out to be 4 years ago or more?






Q

eg8r
06-11-2007, 08:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Its a fact that the Admin put Plame in the spotlight to divert attention to their own lies.
<hr /></blockquote> Nothing you ever say is fact. Now that is fact. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Bobbyrx
06-11-2007, 01:22 PM
Armitage admitted he outed Plame. Novak said Armitage was the source for his story that made it public......so lets go after....Libby

Gayle in MD
06-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Novak talked with Rove, and Cheney, before he talked with Armetage. Cheney originally set the wheels in motion, to out Valarie Plame, through his determination to discredit Wilson. Without Cheney's efforts to cover up the lies that led this country to war, no one would have ever heard about Valarie Plame.

Armetege had no motive for hurting Wilson, or Plame. Armetege said he didn't even know she was covert. Cheney knew, as did Libby, Rove, and Bush. Only the direct superior of a covert, NOC Agent, and the Agents co-operatives with whom they work, knows for sure their secret status. Armetege only knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. The law requires knowledge of status, and intent. The law requires that three questions be asked and fullfilled. There is proof that no articles appeared about Plame, until the White House started calling reporters up, trying to use them to do their dirty work, just as they did to launch this war, and in fact, they called the SAME reporters to out Plame, as they called to launch their lies about WMD, trumped up threats, and Yellow Cake BS.

Only Dick Cheney had both the knowledge, and the authority, to set the wheels in motion to intentionally out Valarie Plame, through Rove and Libby, and Cheney, also, has had the longest and closest relationship with Novak, of just about anyone in Washington. Cheney sent Novak over to Armetege, after talking with Novak himself. Connect the dots. He was covering his own tracks. Armetege inadvertantly gave out information, no knowing Plame's status. Cheney had had the information on Plame, long before that trip was ever made. That's why Bush rushed to de-classify the information, in an extremely unprecedented fashion, never before done in the manner he did it, and gave Cheney authority to de-classify, after the fact. They were all in on outing a Covert NOC, CIA Agent, Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby, period.

Now, the same culprits, Republicans who were having affairs themselves, and who spent 70 million dollars investigating Whitewater, and coming up with absolutely NOTHING, and then decided to resort to investigating Bill Clinton's private, personal relationship with an adult woman, and who parlayed a gentleman's lie, into illegal impeachment proceedings, which later were designated ..... "Does Not Rise To The Level Of An Impeachable Offense" and all for political purposes, are saying that Libby should get off for all his lies about being involved in outing a covert, non official cover, CIA, WMD expert, agent. This, after people in his own office testified that Bush, Cheney, Libby and Rove, were all furious about Wilson's op-ed.

These Republicans, are trash, as far as I'm concerned. Having an affair, isn't half as bad as setting out to ruin another person's career, just to get even, and doing things that are treasonist actions, to do so.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Earlier you said Novak didn't lie. So now he is lieing. There is no way this senario works without Novak and his bosses being in on the scheme also.

Gayle in MD
06-12-2007, 07:22 PM
I didn't say Novak lied. Since it is averred by Novak that *two* officials leaked this to him, it's not an accident, and there's a very reasonable question as to how many more were party to the action, aware of it, tolerating it, and approving of it.

It is clear, that the Special Prosecutor, according to his on the record statements, and the jury members, who spoke to the media, after the trial, and conviction, made public statements, which clearly indicated that Libby was the fall guy for Cheney and Rove. Libby, in the view of the Special Prosecutor, obstructed justice, and committed purgery, and therefore, the person who actually was responsible for giving the orders, Dick Cheney, was protected by Libby's lies. There can be no doubt of that, as Fitzgerald clearly stated, that there was a cloud over the Vice President, and Jurors, asked, "Where are the rest of these guys, Rove, and...." they stopped short of saying Cheney's name, but, Libby was, Cheney's Aide, and followed Cheney's orders.

Valarie is sueing Rove, Libby, Cheney and Armetege. The judge refused to throw the case out, as requested by Libby's attorney. That makes two judges, who have ruled that Plame was outed by those in the White House. When a law is broken, even if the court knows it was broken, and by whom, if the main witness is going to lie to protect the culprit, and take the fall, the case cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hence, Fitzgerald's statement regarding the cloud over Cheney.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 07:46 AM
"Two senior administration officials" ...Novak's words, not mine.

Bobbyrx
06-13-2007, 10:55 AM
Then was he now lieing in this column?: web page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html)

Qtec
06-13-2007, 10:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Armitage admitted he outed Plame. Novak said Armitage was the source for his story that made it public......so lets go after....Libby <hr /></blockquote>

Did Armatige publish this info in the press for all the world to see?
Novak called the WH and got the go-ahead to publish. Thats why Libby is in jail.

You totally ignorned my post.

Q

Qtec
06-13-2007, 11:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Its a fact that the Admin put Plame in the spotlight to divert attention to their own lies.
<hr /></blockquote> Nothing you ever say is fact. Now that is fact. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Its amazing that you , of all people, who have been SO wrong on SO many occassions dares to point the finger!

Libby lied to protect others above him.
In a nutshell, just for you, are you ready?

The WH got in a flap about what Wilson was saying, because in was TRUE.
They panicked, desperate to divert attention from their own lies they sacrificed a USA CIA WMD Specialist to save their own skins.
When this matter was investigated, Libby lied about the extent of WH involvement.
Now he should go to jail.


Got it?

Q

Bobbyrx
06-13-2007, 11:33 AM
Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the leaker before he even tried to indict Libby, but he sat on that information. I can build just as strong a case that Fitzgerald was out to get Libby because Libby was on the team that represented Marc Rich and Fitzgerald was on the team procecuting Rich and Rich was not convicted. Except these are facts supporting this but Novak calling the White House for the go ahead to publish and Cheney being out to get Wilson via Plame, all of this is just conjecture that fits into a neat little conspiracy....except for Armitage

eg8r
06-13-2007, 02:51 PM
Q this is not about pointing fingers it is about stating fact. Nothing you ever say is fact, that is all there is to it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 02:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
but he sat on that information. <hr /></blockquote>

Fritzgerald sat on all the information he had before the indictment, silly. Fitzgerald, was a Republican appointee.
Armetege's conversation did not reveal Plame's covert status. Armetege didn't know she was covert. The law requires a positive answer to three questions. Did you even bother to look them up?

The only ones involved having a motive, and the full knowledge of her status, were in the White House. Only Libby lied to the Grand Jury.

Funny, how the right jumps right off their "A lie is a lie" Modus Operandi, according to whether the liar is a Republican, or a Democrat, regardless of the seriousness of the offense. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Eventho one lie is about a private personal issue which is no one else's business, and the other lie is a cover up for the Vice President's decision to out the identity of a covert CIA NOC Agent, knowing full well, her status.

Atleast 40% of those who are covert, work within the halls of the CIA, at times. It is not a question that those who work there, ask of one another, nor is it a question that is asked between them. You can work beside someone and never know.

Cheney, had the document, which stated her secret status. Armetege, did not. Nor did he tell Novak, that she was covert.

Dick Cheney's operation, knew, and then gave the go ahead. Thus, that action meets the requirements, of the law, as "Outing A Secret Covert Agent"

Plame's testimony completely debunked the story that she sent her husband on the mission, and there was also documentation from others in her division, in fact, right in her office, which completely debunked that theory. The entire testimony, is available on the C-Span Web Site....www.capital news.org

IMO, the reason why Cheney went berzerk, was because he was afraid that the phony Niger documents, containing the false Niger/Yellow Cake/Saddam claim, resulting from the break in at the Niger Embassy, where only the stationary, and the official seal were stolen, would be scrutinized, and people would realize that Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Insititute, paid the thugs in Italy who do that sort of thing for money, and that Cheney was behind the whole thing in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
Giraldi more recently stated in The American Conservative:[11]

At this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains unsubstantiated, though the OSP at a minimum connived to circumvent established procedures to present the information directly to receptive policy makers in the White House. But if the OSP is more deeply involved, Michael Ledeen, who denies any connection with the Niger documents, would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days, including a former Chief of Station from Rome, who, like Ledeen, was also a consultant for the Pentagon and the Iraqi National Congress. It would have been extremely convenient for the administration, struggling to explain why Iraq was a threat, to be able to produce information from an unimpeachable “foreign intelligence source” to confirm the Iraqi worst-case. The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger. The investigation continues, but the campaign against this lone detractor suggests that the administration was concerned about something far weightier than his critical op-ed.
<hr /></blockquote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen


<font color="red">Michael Ledeen, was given a special seat at the table at the American enterprise Institute. The timeing of the break in at the Niger Embassy, was just a few months before Bush was installed in the White House. Ledeen, whose remarks about occupying Iraq, insluding "Faster please, faster," was also Chalibi's long time chum. Ledeen, ended up in a big corner office at the American Enterprise Institute. He was the person, with all the Italian connections, and the adknowledged intent, to create the "New World Order" and all the ties to Wolfowitz, Cheney, AEI, and the rest of the neocon liars that led this country to war on false premises. Cheney's over reaction, to Wilson's OP-ED, is easily logical when one has studied the many books written about The Rise Of The Vulcans You need to do some reading.. </font color>

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-13-2007, 06:06 PM
quote Gayle in Md: "Fritzgerald sat on all the information he had before the indictment, silly. Fitzgerald, was a Republican appointee. <font color="blue">Fitzgerald was called in to investigate the outing of a covert CIA agent after Novak's column. He knew the answer to this question BEFORE the indictment. That should have been it. Obviously he went on a witch hunt </font color>
Armetege's conversation did not reveal Plame's covert status. <font color="blue">Neither did Libby's, but if you believe Novak, Armitage looked him up to talk about just Plame. If you believe Russert's testimony, Libby didn't talk to him about it at all and Cooper said he brought up the subject to Libby not the other way around </font color> Armetege didn't know she was covert. <font color="blue"> How do you know that and how did he know about her at all?

Fitzgerald argued that the obstruction count consists of three allegedly false statements by Libby. The first is when Libby testified that Russert told him that all the reporters knew Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. The second is when Libby testified that he was surprised when Russert allegedly told him about Mrs. Wilson. And the third is when Libby testified that he told Cooper that reporters were telling him, Libby, that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA, when Cooper asked him about Mrs. Wilson working for the CIA . Where is Cheney's name in any of this? And lieing about what and when you remember telling reporters something doesn't keep you from going after Cheney if there was something to it. There is no proof Cheney "went berserk" and no proof Cheney told Libby that Plame was a covert CIA agent and to go out her for revenge</font color>

Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 09:29 PM
You information is scant, and incorrect. As I said, and no offense intended, you need to do some reading about this entire affair. I don't know where you get this stuff, but it isn't factual.

The FBI, interviewed people before Fitzgerald. The CIA requested the investigation on finding out about all those people who were involved in outing a covert CIA agent. I'll bet you haven't even read the information from the links I've given you. I'll bet you didn't even watch the testimony of Valarie Plame. I'll bet you haven't read a single book on this subject. You're trying to argue your points, with right wing republican talking points and right wing media BS. I suggest you read the books written by those who have investigated the entire matter. I've given you enough information, that you should be able to grasp the bones of the facts. You're not related to Eg8r, are you?

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-14-2007, 08:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You information is scant, and incorrect. As I said, and no offense intended, you need to do some reading about this entire affair. <font color="blue"> I read Hubris. It was in the fiction section at Books A Million </font color> I don't know where you get this stuff, but it isn't factual. <font color="blue">specifically? </font color>

<font color="blue"> </font color>

Bobbyrx
06-14-2007, 08:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You information is scant, and incorrect. As I said, and no offense intended, you need to do some reading about this entire affair. <font color="blue"> I read Hubris. It was in the fiction section at Books A Million </font color> I don't know where you get this stuff, but it isn't factual. <font color="blue">specifically? </font color>

<font color="blue"> </font color>

Gayle in MD
06-14-2007, 11:43 AM
Then you need to read it again, because you have misrepresented everything in the book. For one thing, Armetege did not meet with Novak until July. Reporters were being called by Rove, and Libby, in June.

June 23 2003

New York Times reporter Judith Miller meets with I "Scooter" Lewis Libby, who tells her that Vice President Cheney did not know about Joseph Wilson, or his trip and that the CIA never reported it to the VP's office. Libby also tells Miller that Wilson's wife works in the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and arms control division of CIA. Miller writes, "Wife works bureau?" in her notebook.


First reported in Miller's account of her grand jury testimony on September 30 and October 12, 2005. The notes from the conversation were discovered in the Times newsroom after Miller's September 30 grand jury appearance. Libby had not previously disclosed the meeting to prosecutor or investigators.

July 7, 2003
Robert Novak calls Fleicher per White House logs

Secretary of Sate Powell seen boarding AF1 with the State Department memo in his hand...Washingtonpost report...July 21

Libby tried to say that Russart told him about Plame. Russart testified that they never had that conversation.

I could go on, but do your own reading. You do not have your dates or events correct.

The bottom line on all of this is that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell, (Powell, perhaps, unknowingly) lied. They all knew that alQaeda intended to use planes to hit the WTC. They all knew that the intelligence on the tubes, and the Yellow Cake, had been discredited by our onw people, and by the British, and the Italians, and most experts thought it laughable. They knew that Saddam would not have anything at all to do with alQaeda. They all knew that the Yellow Cake story, was false, and they used it in the State Of The Uniion Address, anyway.

When Wilson was talking to people, he was talking on deep cover. He was being call an un-named retired Ambassador, but there were already news articles being published about false intelligence. Arie Fleicher, was lying to the press, saying that no one in the White House had talked to any reporters about Wilson, or Plame.

Plame had nothing to do with sending Wilson on the trip.

Libby lied about everything, over and over, and even people on his staff, testified about his lies. If you read Hubris, which I seriously doubt, you'd know all this. It's all been documented in a number of magazines, and books, including time lines. The greatest Story Ever Sold, by Frank Rich, also includes a time line. Your information is completely false. I might remind you also that Rove, admitted to talking with Mathew Cooper on "Deep Background," Karl Rove tells Cooper not to "Get out too far" on Joseph Wilson's charges about the uranium intelligence. Without naming her, Rove then tells Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA on issues related to weapons of mass destruction, and that she was responsible for Wilson's trip to Niger, before ending the call saying cryptically, "I've already said too much." First reported July 17, 2005, in Cooper's account of his grand jury testimony in time's July 25th issue. After the conversation with Cooper, Rove e-mails Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley telling him that he, (Cooper) "Didn't take the bait" when the Times reporter suggested that Wilson's revelation was damaging to the president...first reported by the associated Press, July 15, 2005.
I hope today, the judge sends Libby's ass to jail. Bush. Cheney and Rice, should all be impeached, and charged with war crimes. They all lied to the the world, and it is a felony to stand in the Congress, and lie, to Congress, the Senate, and particularly, in a State Of The Union Address, designed to send the country to war, with information that our own National Security Agencies had told them all in advance, was false.

Bobbyrx
06-14-2007, 04:03 PM
quote Gayle: After the conversation with Cooper, Rove e-mails Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley telling him that he, (Cooper) "Didn't take the bait" when the Times reporter suggested that Wilson's revelation was damaging to the president...first reported by the associated Press, July 15, 2005.
<font color="blue"> Not quite...." "I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the email to Hadley immediately following his conversation with Cooper. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming. When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this." Rove said HE didn't take the bait being offered up by Cooper, not the other way around.
</font color>

Bobbyrx
06-14-2007, 05:15 PM
quote Gayle:Then you need to read it again, because you have misrepresented everything in the book. For one thing, Armetege did not meet with Novak until July. Reporters were being called by Rove, and Libby, in June.

<font color="blue">Who did Rove and Libby Call? Cooper called Rove about welfare reform and then went into the stuff about Wilson (Rove spoke to him on double super secret background so why did he do this if he wanted Plame publically outed?) and Miller called Libby on a story she was working on about the faulty intelligence produced in the run-up to the Iraq war. </font color>

Gayle in MD
06-14-2007, 09:39 PM
You're misrepresenting everything. You really should go to work for Fox News, or the Republican National Committee. You're in a fog, for sure. Nevertheless, the judge knows more than either of us, since he heard the entire testimony, and one thing he knows for sure, is that Cheney outed Valarie, and Libby, must now serve his jail time, while he appeals the case. Pretty unusual for a first offender, unless it is obvious to the judge that he's still withholding the information, in order to protect Cheney. So, your boy Libby, is off to the cell, in a few weeks...

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-15-2007, 09:11 AM
So you can't dispute the facts so you say I'm in a fog. You completely misrepresented the conversation between Rove and Cooper. Rove never said Cooper took the bait. Libby was convicted by a DC jury and judge, big surprise. The only person who initiated calls to reporters was Armitage. Yet he is portrayed as some innocent busy body just spreading Washington gossip. He called Novak specifically about Wilson and his wife. The REPORTERS initiated the calls to Libby and Rove. If there was some big plot here doesn't it seem like it would be the other way around?

Gayle in MD
06-15-2007, 12:04 PM
From Hubris The book you say, You've read... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
While considering what-if anything-to do about those sixteen words in the state of the union address, White House aides were closely following a political crises in London. In late May, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan had broadcast a sensational report claiming that a well-placed intelligence source had told him that the British white paper on Iraqi WMD released the previous September had been "sexed up" by Blair's Downing Street. The report set off an enormous controversy across the Atlantic. Blair's critics acccused him of having rigged the case for war. Blair demanded a parliamentary inquiry that would put the BBC on trial for relying on an anonymous source to challenge the government's credibility. White House aides worried that walking away from the yellowcake charge would undermine-if not imperil Blair. "There was concern," said a White House oficial, "that the British government might fall."

Inside the Vice President's office, Scooter Libby received a visitor in his office in the Old Executive Office Building; Judy Miller. In her notebook, Miller had scrawled her first question for Libby: "Was the intell slanted?" Libby took the occasion to gripe about the "sellctive leaking" of the CIA, according to Miller's notes of the conversation. He said the agency had a "hedging strategy" to protect itself in case no weapons were found: "If we find it, fine, if not we hedged." He was angry about the media reports suggesting that senior Bush officials, Including Cheney, had embraced and promoted uncertain intelligence reports about Iraq's alleged procurement of uranium in Africa. These news reports, Libby insisted, were "highly distorted." He conceded that Cheney's office had indeed asked about the supposed Niger deal (without acknowledging it had been Cheney who had asked). He told Miller that the CIA had dispatched a "clandestine guy" to Niger to check out the charge. He denied that Cheney had had anything to do with this trip and referred to Joe Wilson by name. Miller wrote in her notebook, "VEEP didn't know of Joe Wilson." She also wrote, "Wife works in Bureau?" That was a reference to the CIA. Miller years later said that Libby had raised the subject of Wilson's wife and had either said she was working or might be working at the CIA. "Miller apparently used the word "bureau" because she had received the impression that Wilson's wife was employed by a bureau within the CIA that handled WMD issues.)

Libby was defensive. And he was blaming the CIA suggesting that if there had been any doubts about the WMD intelligence, the agency hadn't conveyed those uncertainties to the White House. Miller wrote in her notebook. "No briefer came in and said, 'You got it wrong, Mr. President.' "

In late June Cheney discussed with Bush the steady stream of negative news stories about the administration's prewar use of the Iraq intelligence, according to a lawyer close to the principals. Cheney and Bush agreed that to refute the criticism they ought to divulge portions of the classfied National Intelligence Estimate on weapons of mass destruction that had hastily been prepared prior to the congressional vote on the Iraq War resolution. "The president declassified the information and authorized and directed the vice president to get it out," the lawyer said. How that would be done - who should leak the information and to which reporters - was left entirely up to Cheney, the lawyer noted.

This was an extraordinary move. Before the war, it could have been a firing offense - if not a federal crime-for a government official to disclose any of the contents of the NIE. But now, with the administration under fierce attack for having manipulated intelligence, Bush was directing the vice president to leak parts of the NIE to protect the White House. Bush aides would later say that Bush possessed the authority to engage in such an act of automatic declassfication. But the information would be used selectively-not to inform the public but to buttress a political argument.

On the afternoon of June 27, 2003, Woodward showed up in Libby's office, for an interview for Plan Of Attack. He had come with an eighteen page list of questions for Cheney-including one about Valarie Wilson. He spent some time talking to Libby, and Libby took the opportunity to counter the stories including the Pincus piece in Woodward's own newspaper, suggesting the administration had exaggerated the uranium-shopping-in Africa charge. Libby shared with Woodward some of the NIE. According to Woodward's notes. Libby told him that the NIE asserted that there had been an effort by the Iraqis to get yellowcake from Africa. It goes back to February '02." He even used the word "Vigorous" to describe those efforts, just as one sentence of the NIE had said. But Libby wasn't exactly revealing the full truth; he was marshaling evidence to defend his client, the vice president. According to Woodward's account, Libby said nothing about the INE dissent or the qualifiers in the yellowcake section. Nor, apparently, did he tell Woodward about the CIA's recent conclusion that the Niger claim was unfounded. As for Joe Wilson and his wife, Woodward later said that he could not rule out the possibility that he had brought up the subject with Libby. But there was no reference to Valarie Wilson in his interview notes, and he had no recollection of talking with Libby about her - even though Armitage had already told him about the former Ambassador's wife.

The administration's position kept crumbling. The day before Woodward interviewed Libby, The New York Times broke a front-page story disclosing that State's INR had produced a June 2 classified memo disputing the CIA's finding that the trailers found in Iraq were mobile bioweapons labs. After more than three months of war, the mobile trailers were still the only find the administration had to show for its WMD hunt, and now that was officially in doubt.

And administration officials were attempting to wiggle out of their definitive prewar statements. Testifying before the House armed services committee, Wolfowitz remarked, "If there's a problem with intelligence...it doesn't mean that anybody misled anybody."

In late June, Robert Novak got word that a senior government official - someone he had been trying to interview for some time - had finally agreed to see him. The official was Armitage, the deputy secretary of state. For all his years in Washington, Novak didn't have a relationship with Armitage. But he knew that Armitage was the perfect source to talk to about intrigue within the Bush Administrationm particularly the bitter clashes between Colin Powell's State Department and the hawks in the Pentagon and the vice presiden'ts office.

In getting his interview request approved, Novak may have received behind-the-scenes help from another well connected Washington player: Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff in Ronald Reagan's White House and now one of the capital's premier power brokers and lobbyists. Duberstein was a confidant of Powell. (The secretaty affectionately called him "Duberdog.") Duberstein would later tell others that, while chatting with Novak about Powell, he had told the columnist, if you really want to know how Colin is doing, you should talk to Rich; he's running things day to day at the State department. Duberstein said he would make a phone call and help smooth the way.

Novak would later remember the conversation with Duberstein and profess to be unaware of his intervention. But he was happy, and a little surprised, when his interview request suddenly came through toward the end of June. It wouldn't happen right away, however. Novak's meeting with Armitage was scheduled for a couple of weeks later-right after the July 4 holiday.[<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">The truth is that many CIA, Pentagon, and National Security experts, have written many books, which tell the story of an administration trumping evidence to invade Iraq. Many British journalists, have confirmed, the same goings on in Great Britian, by Blair. Many reporters have testified that the Administration mislead them, and the evidence of reporters being used by Rove, Cheney, Libby and others, within the administration, is overwhelmingly abundant. GB admitted, finally, that Iraq, had nothing to do with 9/11, or bin Laden, finally, after getting us embroiled in a war we can't get out of. It is common knowledge that the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute, pushed for this war, for decades. It is a fact, that their biggest contributors, are the same companies, who are making billions off the war. It is a fact, that the Downing Street Memo, states, officially that the administration was fixing intelligence to support policy, and that that same story has been recounted by sources to British reporters, and by American ex-CIA, Pentagon, NSI, Military Generals, and others, who resigned over the lies and distortions used to decieve the American People, and the rest of the world, about Iraq, and the WMD capabilities. It is a fact that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Hadley, and others, all set out to make the american people believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and was a threat. They all lied, and used their right wing media lap dogs to print stories that would support their lies. If you don't think that they were hopping mad when Wison originally began to refute their theories on the yellowcake, first as an anonymous retired Ambassador, and began to unravel their lies, and distortions, about one of the two main arguements they had used to defend their occupation of Iraq, (Yellowcake, and aluminumn tubes, were the cornerstone of their arguments) then you are surely working overtime to try to justify their lies. It really doesn't matter who called whom first, in regard to the whole outing of Plame, and since there are e-mails missing, purged by the practice of using the RNC, separate computers to hide their tracks, another illegal maneuver, BTW, we'll never know for sure who contacted whom, first, but, we do know that the only ones with a motive, was the administration, and the only ones who had certain reporters at their disposal, to use once again, just as they had been used to support the original lies, about WMD, was the administration. It was no accident, that it was a Republican, who fixed up the interview between Armitage, and Novak and it was no accident that Judy Miller had written in her notes, the word, "Plame" and "Bureau," after her meeting with Libby. Many meetings occured between reporters and Rove, and Libby before the meeting between Armitage, and Novak. Cheney actually leaked lies to Judith Miller on the WMD threat, and then made the rounds on the Sunday talk show, and used the very lies he leaked, to justify his lies, by quoting the very person he leaked them to. Rove, and Novak, have been tight friends for years and years, since all the way back to Bush Sr.'s administration, and in fact, Rove was fired for leaking slanderous information about a
Bush critic, to Novak, during the Bush Sr.'s election campaign.

We've been lied to over and over by these lying pieces of scum, and hundreds of thousands of people have died, because of their lies, and because they had a hidden agenda, to occupy Iraq, long before they ever got into the White House, and infact, were talking of how they could use 9/11 to do so, within hours of 9/11.

bin Laden, is still free, and his organization has grown by leaps and bounds, and still, nevertheless, people like you who deny reality, are still putting this country at greater risk, simply because you hate liberals? Because you hate the Clinton's? Because you refuse to accept proven facts? Because you listen to too much Fox news? I'd love to understand how 28% of the American people still either can't, or won't admit, or see, the reality of what is going on. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Oh, and don't bother taking irrelevant points, out of books, and pose irrelevant arguments, for the sole purpose of arguing irrelevant points. It's a waste of time. Scooter Libby lied, period. So say twelve jurors, and a Federal Judge, who is sending him off to jail, all of whom heard much more than either of us. Your statements, are completely absurd. Bush said things in a National State Of The Union address, knowing full well, that they were lies, and hundreds of thousands of people are dying in a war, which would never have happened, had he told the Congress, the Senate, and the American people, the truth. That is a fact. Also, he had to back off of the most important sixteen words in the address, which were lies, which had already been refuted by many Intelligence experts, who told him flat out, "Don't say that!" but he said it anyway, and if you don't think they went lickety split to the CIA to find out just whom they sent to Niger, and set out to discredit Joe Wilson, even if it meant outing a covert CIA NOC agent, to protect their lying asses, then you need a CRAYON!

Bobbyrx
06-15-2007, 08:57 PM
I like the way you use length of post and the same old left wing talking points about things totally off of the subject when you have no answer to obvious holes in your conspiracy theory. well, well, well it doesn't matter who called who first because Bush lied and people died....The British stand by their intelligence about Niger...Which reporters have testified that the Administration mislead them ? If every time you state "It's a fact that..." are really facts then why are these people still in office. If all these other reporters were contacted by the administration about Wilson and Plame, where are they? They would be screaming from the roof tops about it if they had been contacted. But in each case besides Armitage, the REPORTER brought up the subject. Earlier you posted that Novak didn't lie, now you say he is in bed with Rove. Which is it? I already know, He's lieing when what he says doesn't fit the plot but telling the truth when it does...

Bobbyrx
06-15-2007, 09:06 PM
Quote Q "Libby lied to protect others above him.
In a nutshell, just for you, are you ready?

The WH got in a flap about what Wilson was saying, because in was TRUE.
They panicked, desperate to divert attention from their own lies they sacrificed a USA CIA WMD Specialist to save their own skins.
When this matter was investigated, Libby lied about the extent of WH involvement.
Now he should go to jail.


Got it?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">
Except for the part about how sacrificing a USA CIA WMD Specialist would save their own skins. Why would this make Wilson less credible? And Armitage was just telling everyone about Plame because he likes to gossip?
</font color>

eg8r
06-16-2007, 02:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty unusual for a first offender, unless it is obvious to the judge that he's still withholding the information, in order to protect Cheney. So, your boy Libby, is off to the cell, in a few weeks...
<hr /></blockquote> It is only unusual because you still have a conspiracy theory you want to pimp.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-16-2007, 07:16 AM
Like I said Before, you need a crayon. Unable, or unwilling, to connect the dots, on how and why Plame was outed, and Wilson's integrity attacked, by the Bush Administration, I will point out to you that the background on all of this had to do more with covering up the lies they told, to sell the invasion of Iraq, and send our troops to war, than it did with outing a secret CIA, NOC, agent. As the judge stated, in sentencing Libby, his carelessness in confirming her position to reporters, with or without knowing her status, only proves his complete lack of concern for the damage that could result. And I might add, Rove, Cheney and Bush, are just as guilty.
Washingtonpost....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400199.html
A federal judge ordered Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff to surrender in six to eight weeks to begin serving his 30-month prison term, increasing the pressure for President Bush to decide soon whether he will pardon the only administration official prosecuted in a White House leak investigation.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said both the law and his own sense of fairness required that he reject I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's request to remain free while appealing his conviction for perjury and obstruction of the leak investigation, an approach that could have deferred the pardon question for years.



In a file photo former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby walks towards his car outside federal court in Washington, Tuesday, June 5, 2007, after he was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation. Libby is headed back to court Thursday, June 14, 2007, to try to forestall his 2¿-year prison term in the CIA leak case. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) (Charles Dharapak - AP)

More on the Libby Trial
The perjury trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff calls up high-profile witnesses.

Evidence Entered in Trial Government exhibits used in the trial in the format admitted in the court.
Indictment: U.S. v Libby











Walton said his decision was based on what he considers to be the slight chance Libby will succeed in having his conviction overturned, and his belief that the court cannot have one set of standards for well-connected, white-collar criminals and another for other criminals also about to lose their freedom.

"Clearly, under the statute, I'm required to detain him," Walton said before delivering his decision. "And I just think blue-collar criminals are entitled to the same kind of justice as white-collar criminals."

Libby remained stoic as Walton announced his decision, while his wife, Harriet Grant, wiped away tears. Two of his attorneys, who had seemed resigned to getting bad news throughout the two-hour hearing, shook their heads ruefully. They later vowed to file an emergency appeal to seek a delay in Libby's reporting to prison.

Unless Walton's decision is overturned swiftly by a higher court, Bush will face a choice between allowing a loyal member of his administration to go to prison and reaping the political consequences of pardoning a convicted felon who was once a trusted adviser to his vice president.

As president and as the governor of Texas before that, Bush has been sparing in granting pardons and has typically done so only after those involved served partial sentences. But he is under substantial pressure from conservatives who are indignant that Libby was convicted of lying in an investigation that never charged anyone with the illegal leak of information.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">What was the underlying crime Clinton committed that was such a great cause of the right for impeachment proceedings?</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

"Scooter Libby still has the right to appeal, and therefore the president will continue not to intervene in the judicial process," said White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino. "The president feels terribly for Scooter, his wife and their young children, and all that they're going through."

<font color="red">Awe, poor Scooter, who helped send our troops to die, on lies. </font color>

The judge indicated he would not be swayed by any form of public pressure in the high-profile case. More than 160 people wrote to him, mostly Libby's friends, <font color="red">Right, and most of them making billions off this war, just like Libby, heavily invested in the Industrial Military Complex. </font color> pleading for leniency. But Walton ruled last week that Libby should serve 30 months in prison -- rather than the probation he sought.

Yesterday, Walton said that since that ruling, he had received a series of "angry, harassing" letters from citizens. <font color="red">All those upstanding types, I'm sure, Like Wolfowitz, Feith, and all the other Fascists who are lyers, and war for money, blood for their pockets. </font color> Some threatened harm to the judge and his family. <font color="red">Typical Right wing Republican M.O)., they probably got that idea from Rove, who slandered Ann Richards, spreading false rumors in Bush's Texas Campaign for governor, accusing her of being a lesbian. Oh, but Cheney's daughter has gotten a bye from Rove, and Republicans, for her sexual preferences. </font color> "Obviously, I find that very troubling," Walton told the prosecutor and Libby's attorneys. "Those types of things cannot and will not have an impact on my decision."

Walton also expressed irritation at a six-page brief filed last week by a dozen prominent constitutional scholars urging that Libby remain free pending appeal, on grounds that the prosecution lacked proper legal authority. The brief from the group, which included Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz but was dominated by conservative legal luminaries, including former Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, was "not persuasive" and bordered on insulting, Walton said.

"The submission was not something I would expect from a first-year law student," a frowning Walton told Libby's new appellate attorney, Lawrence Robbins. "It appeared to be produced . . . for the sole purpose of throwing their names out there so somehow I'd feel pressure."

<font color="red">I will remind you that this judge is a conservative, Republican appointee. </font color>

After yesterday's hearing, Libby and his wife and two lead attorneys were escorted by U.S. marshals through a back entrance of the courtroom for processing by federal probation officials; they left the building about 30 minutes later. In coming days, the Bureau of Prisons will recommend a prison, probably a minimum-security camp within driving distance of Washington, where Libby can serve his sentence.

In March, a federal jury found Libby guilty of four felonies for lying to FBI agents and the grand jury that investigated the leak of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. <font color="red">Much of the proof of his lies, was provided by testimony from White House staffers. </font color> The jury convicted Libby of two perjury counts and one count each of obstructing justice and making false statements about when and how he learned Plame's identity -- and what he told journalists about her. <font color="red"> The facts show that Cheney informed him of her covert status, just before sending him to the phones to be a confirming source, at the very least, for reporters, which is a crime, in and of itself. </font color>

The investigation, led by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, focused on whether senior Bush officials broke the law by telling journalists about Plame's classified employment by the CIA. The first public disclosure was in a column by Robert D. Novak that appeared after Plame's husband published a critique of the Iraq war. Novak heard the information from presidential adviser Karl Rove and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage.

<font color="red">I suppose you may have trouble reading those words, so I will assist you...Karl Rove... </font color>

The probe uncovered evidence that Cheney personally instructed Libby and other aides to seek out reporters to rebut the critique from Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, but Fitzgerald said that Libby's lies about what he knew about Plame and what he said to reporters obstructed the effort to determine who was behind the leaks regarding Plame. <font color="red">I'm sure you righties are proud of your Vice President...the CIA spends millions on developing these agents, and their agency operatives who work with them. More about this will be revealed in the civil suit, but none of you will be keeping up with that, Im' sure. </font color>

Libby's attorneys unsuccessfully argued that he had innocently misremembered his conversations about Plame because he was busy with more important national security work.

<font color="red">Right! The testimony from White House personnel, proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they weren't focused on anything but refuting Wilson's revelations which concluded, along with many of our own NIE, that the yellowcake theory, was laughable.

What is really disturbing about people who are not partiotic enough to make the effort to be fully informed when our people are dying on the other side of the world, because George Bush lied to everybody, is particularly distressing, because they are STILL dying, for nothing, and the man who planned and set in motion the horror of 9/11, is still free. But then, how could anyone expect the Bush defenders to grasp the gross inustice involved in that, when they obviously don't mind a president, recieving an urgent memo, entitled, "bin Laden determined to attack inside United States" and then promptly going fishing. Also, you questions, as usual, prove you have done little or no research. Had you really done your homework, you'd have known that the Niger theory, on the Yellowcake, is known and accepted all over the world, as pure nonsense, and a result of Blair lying, in conjunction with Bush, and a break in at the Niger Embassy, which has been linked to Michael Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Institute...the breeding ground for the Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, Libby, Halliburton, Fred Thompson, and many other neocon chicken hawks, entire fiasco of going to war to make billions with a ideological hubris, and using lies to justify it. Over thirty-five one hundre American troops are now dead because of their lies, and incompetence, hence, all but the idiots who can't connect dots, are calling this president, and this administration, the worst in history, just as I predicted, years ago, but then, anyone who still thinks the Niger claims are true, and the aluminum tubes, and the Mushroom Clouds, couldn't possibly know much about Scooter Libby!</font color>

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-19-2007, 06:19 PM
"The investigation, led by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, focused on whether senior Bush officials broke the law by telling journalists about Plame's classified employment by the CIA. <font color="blue"> Which they must not have because none of them were even CHARGED much less indicted or convicted of this. So they decided to go after Libby even though they already knew who leaked the name to Novak </font color> The first public disclosure was in a column by Robert D. Novak that appeared after Plame's husband published a critique of the Iraq war. Novak heard the information from presidential adviser Karl Rove and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage. <font color="blue">He heard it from Armitage who initiated the contact and then called Rove to try to confirm it. </font color>

I suppose you may have trouble reading those words, so I will assist you...Karl Rove... <font color="blue"> who cooperated with the investigation and was not even charged with anything </font color>

The probe uncovered evidence that Cheney personally instructed Libby and other aides to seek out reporters to rebut the critique from Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, <font color="blue"> not true, which reporters testified they were sought out?? </font color> but Fitzgerald said that Libby's lies about what he knew about Plame and what he said to reporters obstructed the effort to determine who was behind the leaks regarding Plame. <font color="blue"> He ALREADY KNEW who leaked the name before he even started. Why not go after Armitage and find out who told HIM if Libby's supposedly lieing is the reason they can't go after Cheney. The only reason I can think of is that Armitage told him (Fitzgerald) how he found out and it didn't lead to Cheney. So if Armitage knew and it wasn't from Cheney then it probably wasn't that big of a secret......I prefer blue crayon today</font color>

Gayle in MD
06-20-2007, 09:12 AM
Poster: Bobbyrx
Subject: Re: Libby's Supporters, Proud to Support Treason?

"The investigation, led by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, focused on whether senior Bush officials broke the law by telling journalists about Plame's classified employment by the CIA. Which they must not have because none of them were even CHARGED much less indicted or convicted of this. <font color="red">Rove and Cheney weren't charged because Libby was the fall guy, who lied to protect them, and himself. White House aides, and reporters, reveal his lies, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Rove discussed Valarie with Novak on July 9, pushing the lie that Plame sent her husband on a junket, same words Cheney had written in his own hand on the NYTimes article. Two days later Rove becomes Cooper's source, that's two reporters that sighted Rove as their source. Novak's article comes out on July 14,03, citing two senior administration officials as sources. Both Novak and Cooper say Rove was their one of their sources. Without another source to confirm, namely Rove, Novak said he wouldn't have written the article in the first place, on only one source, Armetege.</font color> So they decided to go after Libby <font color="red">The CIA requested an investigation of all and any involved in the eventual leak of a covert agent's identity, you can leave the Rovarian right wing spin out of this. </font color> even though they already knew who leaked the name to Novak <font color="red">AGain, Novak cited two sources, and Rove was one of them. </font color> The first public disclosure was in a column by Robert D. Novak that appeared after Plame's husband published a critique of the Iraq war. Novak heard the information from presidential adviser Karl Rove and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage. He heard it from Armitage who initiated the contact and then called Rove to try to confirm it. <font color="red">AGain Novak cited two ssources, Rove was one of them, and the only reason why he got off, was because his lawyer took Vivica Novak out to lunch, and loosened her tongue with alcohol, and learned that Cooper was going to testify that Rove was his source, hence, suddenly, the missing e-mail turns up. Rove got off by the skin of his teeth. </font color>

I suppose you may have trouble reading those words, so I will assist you...Karl Rove... who cooperated with the investigation and was not even charged with anything <font color="red">Did not cooperate, lied, got caught lying, but his lawyer did some sluething, and got a heads up on what Cooper's testimony would be. </font color>

The probe uncovered evidence that Cheney personally instructed Libby and other aides to seek out reporters to rebut the critique from Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, not true, which reporters testified they were sought out?? <font color="red">If you know certain people, reporters, will be calling, to get you to talk, you don't have to be the one to call. They only had to send an e-mail, but, as we now know, there were illegal practices going on by atleast 51 White House aides, who broke the laws, both the Hatch Act, and the Presidential Records Initiative, in order to cover up all their illegal operations. </font color> but Fitzgerald said that Libby's lies about what he knew about Plame and what he said to reporters obstructed the effort to determine who was behind the leaks regarding Plame. He ALREADY KNEW who leaked the name before he even started. <font color="red">You are under the false assumption that only one person can be involved in a leak. Novak spoke to the Special Prosecutor, and cited both Armetege, and Rove, as his sources. </font color> Why not go after Armitage and find out who told HIM if Libby's supposedly lieing is the reason they can't go after Cheney. The only reason I can think of is that Armitage told him (Fitzgerald) how he found out and it didn't lead to Cheney. So if Armitage knew and it wasn't from Cheney then it probably wasn't that big of a secret......I prefer blue crayon today

<font color="red">Try a red one, since your brain only functions with a red slant on everything, in your on-going, relentless quest to protect liars, and lawbreakers, in the Republican party, which has traditionally presented us with the biggest liars of all time, including Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon, both of whom presented us with long long lists of senior White House and administration liars, who were indicted, and convicted. </font color>

Gayle in MD
06-20-2007, 10:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
not true, which reporters testified they were sought out?? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">If Bush and cheney hadn't lied us into this war, Valarie Plame would never have been outed, by the Vice President, using Libby, to do his dirty work. As you see, there were reporters, called by Libby. Cheney, was behind all of it, and the unprecedented de-classification of the secret information about a covert agent, is one of the worst things that Bush has done, as president, with many many to choose from. The real story, however, which no one is willing to touch, other than several Italian Journalists, who have written books about the matter, is how the American Enterprise Institute, used Michael Ledeen, to pay the Italian Rogues, who broke into the Niger Embassy in Italy, and stole the stationary, and official mailing stamp, to create the false documents about Saddam, and the Niger yellow cake. This group of Italian criminals, who get paid by certain county's, to create false intelligence, for illegal purposes, were linked to Michael Ledeen, of AEI, the guy who said about occupying Iraq, "Faster please, faster"

As you can see, if you even bother to read this account from the Washington Post, even Ari Fleicher, states that Libby revealed the classfied information to him, before Libby says he even knew about it, in testimony to the FBI. No one in Washington believes that Armetege wasn't prompted by Cheney, to push out the story, and Rove, also called reporters. They were on a streak, obviously, to punish the Wilson's, for expsoing their lies, about the Niger-yellowcake, while others in the CIA, had warned them that that story, was highly unlikely to be true, even using the words, "Laughable" You may consider, also, that this is only one story of how they cherry picked, and lied, to all of us, using the National Tragedy of 9/11, to do what they had decided to do before bush ever entered the White House, compliments of the Supreme Court, Florida governor Bush, and Kathrine Harris. </font color>

Gayle in Md....done with this subject, and Libby belongs in Jail, but Cheney and Bush should be sharing the cell with him, along with Mary Matalin and Karl Rove.

Gayle in MD
06-20-2007, 11:59 AM
Novak cited two sources, and Rove was one of them. Also, the issues of Cheney's fury over the article, and the organized White House effort to punish the Wilson's, and Libby's lies to the FBI, and the Grand Jury, cannot be denied...he knew what he was doing, and did it on purpose, and even Rove, made the statement, when talking to a reporter..."I've already said too much."

Former Press Secretary Says Libby Told Him of Plame
Fleischer's Testimony On Timing Supports Prosecution's Case

By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; A03



Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified yesterday that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby divulged Valerie Plame's identity to him in July 2003, three days earlier than Libby has told investigators he first learned of the undercover CIA officer.

Fleischer's narrative of Libby's "hush-hush" disclosures over a lunch table in a White House dining room made President Bush's former spokesman the most important prosecution witness to date in the week-old perjury trial of Vice President Cheney's onetime chief of staff.

Though a series of government officials have told the jury that Libby eagerly sought information about a prominent critic of the Iraq war, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Fleischer was the first witness to say Libby then passed on what he learned: that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer who had sent him on a trip to Africa. Wilson's mission there was to explore reports, ultimately proved false, that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material in Niger.

Fleischer, testifying under an immunity agreement with the prosecution, also made it clear that Libby had told him Wilson's wife held a position in the CIA's counterproliferation division, where most employees work in a covert capacity.

Fleischer said he believes Libby mentioned Plame's name, although he told the jury he could not be sure. Libby "added that this was something hush-hush or on the QT, that not many people knew this information," Fleischer testified.

The unusual spectacle of a president's top spokesman testifying in open court widened the rare view the trial is providing the jury -- and the public -- of the inner workings of a White House that has proudly guarded its privacy.

Libby is charged with lying to FBI agents and a grand jury as well as obstructing justice in a federal investigation of who revealed Plame's name to journalists, including columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published it July 14, 2003. He is not charged with the leak itself, which administration critics have contended was designed to discredit Wilson's argument that the White House was twisting his findings as it justified the invasion of Iraq.

Libby has pleaded not guilty to all five felony counts. He told investigators he learned about Plame's identity during a telephone call on July 10, 2003, with NBC's Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert. He and his attorneys contend he did not remember the conversations he had with reporters about Plame amid the crush of his national security work.

Fleischer's testimony buttressed Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's case in at least two ways. Fleischer testified that his lunch with Libby -- the first he ever had with Cheney's top aide, a week before the press secretary was to leave his White House job -- took place on July 7, 2003, before Libby spoke with Russert.

Fleischer also reinforced the prosecution's central argument: that Libby had been so determined to learn and spread information about Wilson and Plame that he could not have forgotten his efforts.

Both sides have portrayed Libby and Cheney as especially eager to knock down news accounts that Cheney had asked for Wilson's trip.

Under cross-examination by defense attorney William Jeffress Jr., Fleischer said that his conversation with Libby about Wilson's wife had been short and that Fleischer had not relayed that information to reporters until he heard a similar account from another White House aide.

Fleischer testified that, later on the day of his lunch with Libby, he and other top aides left with President Bush on a five-day trip to several African nations. He said that while he was on Air Force One between South Africa and Uganda, he overheard Dan Bartlett, at the time Bush's communications director and now counselor to the president, "vent" about news accounts that Cheney had requested Wilson's mission.

Fleischer said that he decided to tell two reporters, NBC's David Gregory and Time magazine's John Dickerson, as they were walking along a road in Uganda: "If you want to know who sent the ambassador to Niger, it was his wife; she works there" -- a reference to the CIA.

In an interview yesterday, Dickerson, who has left Time and is writing about the trial for Slate, an online magazine, said he recalls that Fleischer had merely urged Gregory and him to "check and see who sent Wilson" on the trip. Dickerson said he first learned about Plame's CIA role from then-colleague Matthew Cooper by telephone several hours after he spoke with Fleischer.

Fleischer testified that neither Libby nor Bartlett invoked a White House protocol under which colleagues warned him when they were providing classified information that could not be discussed with reporters. He said he "never in my wildest dreams thought this information would be classified."

In September 2003, about 2 1/2 months after his conversations with reporters about Plame, Fleischer testified that he saw a news account that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate a possible illegal leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

"I thought, 'Oh, my God. Did I play a role in somehow outing a CIA officer? . . . Did I just do something that I could be in big trouble for?' "

He said that, although he believed he had passed on classified information unwittingly, he hired lawyers who negotiated his immunity from prosecution, except for the possibility of perjury.

Late yesterday afternoon, Cheney's current chief of staff, David S. Addington, took the witness stand, testifying that Libby had, early in the summer of 2003, asked him whether the president had authority to declassify government secrets and whether the CIA kept paperwork documenting its work. Addington said he replied yes to both.

He testified that Libby did not tell him why he was asking. But Addington said he surmised that the reason might have been Wilson's criticism of the president and the war.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said that former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the first of several prominent journalists who figure in the case, probably would testify today.

Gayle in MD
06-20-2007, 07:35 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/what-the-libby-prosecutio_b_52860.html

A list of the facts about why he only went after Libby. Also, Fitzgerald, was a Republican appointee. It can't be a political witch hunt. The CIA requested the Investigation. Only lhe original leaker was targeted, Cheney, and Libby fell on his sword to protect him. Simple to grasp, unless one doesn't want to accept the facts.


From the article, linked above...

The prosecutor conceded that he could not learn enough to prosecute the underlying crime of "outing" an agent under the Espionage Act. This abstention is taken by apologists for Libby to demonstrate that there was no underlying crime. Sometimes they go a step further and imply that Fitzgerald himself admitted that he thought there was no underlying crime. He did nothing of the sort.

Whatever one thinks of the defendant, it is worth getting clear about the facts of the case -- dare one say, for the sake of truth?

A. Fitzgerald determined that Valerie Plame was a covert agent whose name had been leaked. This was a serious crime under the Espionage Act, which endangered the work of American intelligence everywhere by its malignant example. It also endangered every contact Plame had made under cover. It also threatened Plame herself, even as it brought her career to an undesired and premature end. All this Fitzgerald said clearly. Repeat: he determined that to leak her name was a crime. It was a crime committed by X.

Now, who was X?

B. Fitzgerald had no interest in secondary leakers, or sprayers of her name. No interest, therefore, in Armitage, Novak, or the reporters. They merely passed on a leak that should be traceable to a single source. He would have prosecuted the source had he been able to detect it with certainty.

C. Fitzgerald apparently believed that the source was the vice president; but he could not prove this. Hence his conclusion that there is "a cloud over the vice president." He took that phrase, which the defense had flippantly introduced on the assumption that it would embarrass him, and, turning the tables, he chose to repeat the phrase several times in his closing statement. There is a cloud over the vice president.

D. He examined Lewis Libby very extensively in order to try to get information about who ordered him to leak the name. The smokescreen of lies told by Libby defeated the prosecutor's sustained attempt to discover who ordered the leak.

E. He prosecuted Libby for false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice because his lies prevented the discovery of the truth about the leak of the name of a covert agent.

F. He did not prosecute Armitage, Novak, or the reporters because they did not lie to the FBI or to the grand jury. He charged only Libby, because only Libby did lie. Had Libby simply fallen silent, he would not have been prosecuted for perjury or false statements.

G. Fitzgerald said that the law is like an umpire, and Libby threw sand in the eyes of the umpire. A careful and accurate figure of speech, which crystallizes the meaning of the last sentence of F above. It was Libby's positive decision, not just not to tell the truth, but to try to make a false story prevail, that made Fitzgerald determine to prosecute him rigorously. Very likely (though this much is speculative) the prosecutor and the judge both had a strong feeling of indignation against a person who tried to twist the public understanding of the truth: an indignation they would not feel regarding a person who by his silence said, in effect, "I am not an honest person in this matter; I can't afford to be honest." Silence is a refusal to assist the cause of finding the truth; but that is not the same as actively seeking to corrupt the search. The latter posture harms all honesty in public life and it helps criminals to thrive. Indignation is the right feeling to have about it.

<font color="red">So, are you proud to support a liar, who covered up for Cheney, who outed a covert CIA WMD Operative? That was the question, before you started changing the facts.</font color>