indictment for Libby, lying to grand jury.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But just because prosecutors are not able to convict certain people on obvious charges doesn't mean they are not guilty of them, and should not be jailed because of it.

488817[/snapback]

 

Because "Even though we can't convict you, we're putting you in jail because we think you're guilty anyway" is the foundation of the American legal system...

 

Did you really just type that.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This administration is the most corrupt in US history.  And yet there are people who will make excuses, mince words, and deflect criticism for them.  Ironically it's mostly the people who say they "love" America.

 

PTR

488863[/snapback]

 

I'll make excuses and deflect criticism for them, and I !@#$ing hate America at this point.

[Kelly the Dog]

Because "Even though we can't convict you, we're putting you in jail because we think you're guilty anyway" is the foundation of the American legal system...

 

Did you really just type that. 

488878[/snapback]

No. Nothing of the sort. Just the opposite in fact. Like the Michael Jackson and OJ examples. They could not be proved guilty of anything so they did and should be let free, even if they were guilty. Stewart, Capone, examples, are ones that show they should be put in jail because they could be proven to be guilty of a crime, even if it were not the obvious crime. It's somewhat similar to the spirit of the law versus the technicality of the law argument. Both have some legitimacy. I lean to the spirit of the law argument. Fitzgerald himself gave a couple of excellent answers I thought to that very issue.

[Johnny Coli]

Because "Even though we can't convict you, we're putting you in jail because we think you're guilty anyway" is the foundation of the American legal system...

 

Did you really just type that. 

488878[/snapback]

Aren't those very words in the Patriot Act? How ironic for Scooter.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Aren't those very words in the Patriot Act?  How ironic for Scooter.

488887[/snapback]

 

Not quite verbatim...but close.

 

And personally, I think Scooter Libby should have simply been convicted of "Criminal misuse of a dumbass nickname in the 1st degree." "Scooter Libby"???? WTF???

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No. Nothing of the sort. Just the opposite in fact. Like the Michael Jackson and OJ examples. They could not be proved guilty of anything so they did and should be let free, even if they were guilty. Stewart, Capone, examples, are ones that show they should be put in jail because they could be proven to be guilty of a crime, even if it were not the obvious crime. It's somewhat similar to the spirit of the law versus the technicality of the law argument. Both have some legitimacy. I lean to the spirit of the law argument. Fitzgerald himself gave a couple of excellent answers I thought to that very issue.

488884[/snapback]

 

Though I agree with that, you typed:

 

"But just because prosecutors are not able to convict certain people on obvious charges doesn't mean they are not guilty of them, and should not be jailed because of it."

 

Which, as I read it, is different. I'd sooner you just said "Yeah, that was pretty damned stupid, here's what I really meant..." than tried to defend it, as I know you better than that by now...

[Kelly the Dog]

Not quite verbatim...but close. 

 

And personally, I think Scooter Libby should have simply been convicted of "Criminal misuse of a dumbass nickname in the 1st degree."  "Scooter Libby"????  WTF??? 

488890[/snapback]

It's a heinous crime in and of itself. I can fully understand not wanting to go through life as an "Irving", especially immediately followed by "Libby". Going by your middle name "Lewis" ain't all that great, but allowing himself to be referred to as "I. Lewis" is nearly as bad as Irving itself. And his intelligence and ability to make decisions should have been questioned right from the getgo. But to then go through life as a 50+ year-old "Scooter" shows serious mental deficiencies. It's all rather embarrassing.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It's a heinous crime in and of itself. I can fully understand not wanting to go through life as an "Irving", especially immediately followed by "Libby". Going by your middle name "Lewis" ain't all that great, but allowing himself to be referred to as "I. Lewis" is nearly as bad as Irving itself. And his intelligence and ability to make decisions should have been questioned right from the getgo. But to then go through life as a 50+ year-old "Scooter" shows serious mental deficiencies. It's all rather embarrassing.

488898[/snapback]

 

That'll probably be his defense strategy. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...the defendant calls himself 'Scooter Libby'. Clearly mens rea doesn't apply, as he couldn't possibly expect anyone to take him seriously as 'Scooter Libby'...so he must be found not guilty..."

[Kelly the Dog]

That'll probably be his defense strategy.  "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...the defendant calls himself 'Scooter Libby'.  Clearly mens rea doesn't apply, as he couldn't possibly expect anyone to take him seriously as 'Scooter Libby'...so he must be found not guilty..."

488904[/snapback]

I would email that to the RNC. It is very likely a better defense and a better chance of eradicating him than the ones they are considering now and/or will likely use.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I would email that to the RNC. It is very likely a better defense and a better chance of eradicating him than the ones they are considering now and/or will likely use.

488908[/snapback]

 

Actually, I think the defense they should use is the one Martha Stewart should have used: if he's charged with lying, what's he lying for? To cover up the commission of a crime...that the prosecution themselves can't establisih the commission of anyway? So Libby's accused of lying to cover...what? Where's the predicate criminal act here that necessitated lying?

 

Yes, I know that's not the law...in the eyes of the law, lying to prosecutors is a crime in and of itself not requiring a predicate act. In the eyes of the law. In the eyes of a jury, however...a good attorney arguing it might just cloud the issue enough to get a "not guilty" verdict. Particularly in this case; in Stewart's case, the prosecutors at least had enough evidence to bring the predicate act (insider trading) to trial, though they couldn't get a conviction. Here, they can't even manage that much.

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, I think the defense they should use is the one Martha Stewart should have used: if he's charged with lying, what's he lying for?  To cover up the commission of a crime...that the prosecution themselves can't establisih the commission of anyway?  So Libby's accused of lying to cover...what?  Where's the predicate criminal act here that necessitated lying?

 

Yes, I know that's not the law...in the eyes of the law, lying to prosecutors is a crime in and of itself not requiring a predicate act.  In the eyes of the law.  In the eyes of a jury, however...a good attorney arguing it might just cloud the issue enough to get a "not guilty" verdict.  Particularly in this case; in Stewart's case, the prosecutors at least had enough evidence to bring the predicate act (insider trading) to trial, though they couldn't get a conviction.  Here, they can't even manage that much.

488920[/snapback]

I think Fitzgerald already laid that out perfectly well today, why lying about classified information, especially a spy, in wartime, hurts the country. And that Plame's status was indeed classified and they knew it. That would not sell with a jury whether what they actually did was illegal or not.

[Wacka]

I think Fitzgerald already laid that out perfectly well today, why lying about classified information, especially a spy, in wartime, hurts the country. And that Plame's status was indeed classified and they knew it. That would not sell with a jury whether what they actually did was illegal or not.

488988[/snapback]

 

 

Again Kelly, read what you wrote. First, he didn't lie about classified information. Second, her status was not classified. Victoria Toensig (sp?), the woman who WROTE the 1982 law said that Plame was not a covert spy and that telling people she used to be did not violate the law. The former spy has to have been stationed outside the US within 5 years of being outed. Plame was not. The last time worked outside the US was in 95. She has been an analyst (desk jockey) at HQ since then. The Washington Times reported on July 25th, 2005 that her neighbors knew she worked at Langley for years. And the person telling the status had to ahve known she was still covert and did it with malicious intent. She said today that the 1917 spionage act that some have brought up her does not pertain either because that is for revealing troopand ship movements.

 

Why wasn't Bill and Hillary indicted for far far worse things, like I pointed out earlier.

[Kelly the Dog]

Again Kelly, read what you wrote.  First, he didn't lie about classified information. Second, her status was not classified. Victoria Toensig (sp?), the woman who WROTE the 1982 law said that Plame was not a covert spy and that telling people she used to be did not violate the law.  The former spy has to have been stationed outside the US within 5 years of being outed. Plame was not. The last time worked outside the US was in 95. She has been an analyst (desk jockey) at HQ since then. The Washington Times reported on July 25th, 2005 that her neighbors knew she worked at Langley for years. And the person telling the status had to ahve known she was still covert and did it with malicious intent. She said today that the 1917 spionage act that some have brought up her does not pertain either because that is for revealing troopand ship movements.

 

Why wasn't Bill and Hillary indicted for far far worse things, like I pointed out earlier.

489084[/snapback]

Fitzgerald said today flat out the information was classified. He is the prosecutor on the case.

 

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

Another little tidbit:

Go to page 5 of the indictment [PDF]. Top of the page, item #9.

 

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

 

This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Again Kelly, read what you wrote.  First, he didn't lie about classified information. Second, her status was not classified. Victoria Toensig (sp?), the woman who WROTE the 1982 law said that Plame was not a covert spy and that telling people she used to be did not violate the law.  The former spy has to have been stationed outside the US within 5 years of being outed. Plame was not. The last time worked outside the US was in 95. She has been an analyst (desk jockey) at HQ since then. The Washington Times reported on July 25th, 2005 that her neighbors knew she worked at Langley for years. And the person telling the status had to ahve known she was still covert and did it with malicious intent. She said today that the 1917 spionage act that some have brought up her does not pertain either because that is for revealing troopand ship movements.

 

Why wasn't Bill and Hillary indicted for far far worse things, like I pointed out earlier.

489084[/snapback]

 

If you can continue to bring up Bill and Hillary, shouldn't the left be allowed to drone on and on, much like you do in 2 out of every 3 posts, about Nixon and Watergate?

[EC-Bills]

If you can continue to bring up Bill and Hillary, shouldn't the left be allowed to drone on and on, much like you do in 2 out of every 3 posts, about Nixon and Watergate?

489104[/snapback]

 

Of course not. Rush and Ann who feed him his bullet points said that's not allowed.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from.

489098[/snapback]

 

That's pretty much irrelevent. Just working in DO doesn't mean you're maintaining a cover to the point that you can't admit you work for the CIA.

 

Not that there isn't other evidence that she was...just that that little tidbit isn't evidence.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's pretty much irrelevent.  Just working in DO doesn't mean you're maintaining a cover to the point that you can't admit you work for the CIA.

 

Not that there isn't other evidence that she was...just that that little tidbit isn't evidence.

489120[/snapback]

My point on it which I have said before, and it is just reinforced by that information, is that if they DIDNT ask exactly what she did when they were told it was DO that would have been even more heinous, and if they did ask, they would have known her position was classified. Either way, the fact she was in DO is a significant piece of information and not irrelevant. It isn't evidence that proves a crime, but I didn't say it was. I said it was an interesting tidbit, and the article said it was a crucial piece of information. It's important in the case and it's important in the public arena where a lot of people are throwing out erroneous information that everyone knew she was an agent and it wasn't classified.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My point on it which I have said before, and it is just reinforced by that information, is that if they DIDNT ask exactly what she did when they were told it was DO that would have been even more heinous, and if they did ask, they would have known her position was classified.

 

What? So because her position was classified, they're guilty because they didn't ask what she did? That would therefore mean that they couldn't "out" her, as they couldn't have known her presence at CIA was classified...and you're saying that - not asking and not knowing - is somehow worse than knowing and consciously talking?

 

You're seriously reaching.

 

Either way, the fact she was in DO is a significant piece of information and not irrelevant.

489126[/snapback]

 

No, the fact that she was in DO is neither significant nor relevant. The fact that she was working under a cover story to mask her work at CIA is significant and relevant. That the work was under the Directorate of Operations...where, precisely is the significance of that? Is working under Ops, as opposed to say Intel or Sci-Tech, supposed to make a cover more important? Again...reaching...

[Kelly the Dog]

What?  So because her position was classified, they're guilty because they didn't ask what she did?  That would therefore mean that they couldn't "out" her, as they couldn't have known her presence at CIA was classified...and you're saying that - not asking and not knowing - is somehow worse than knowing and consciously talking? 

 

You're seriously reaching. 

No, the fact that she was in DO is neither significant nor relevant.  The fact that she was working under a cover story to mask her work at CIA is significant and relevant.  That the work was under the Directorate of Operations...where, precisely is the significance of that?  Is working under Ops, as opposed to say Intel or Sci-Tech, supposed to make a cover more important?  Again...reaching...

489143[/snapback]

Man, for such a smart guy you're sure narrow minded and thinking sometimes. Okay, not sometimes, often. Or else you just don't read. I wasn't talking about guilt under the law, I was talking about the fact they knew they were releasing the name of someone from the CIA. If all they knew about her was that she worked for the CIA, or that she worked for DO, she could have been one of the most important spies in the entire intelligence community for all they knew. If you're going to out someone you better know damn well what she does before the outing. And for the record, I never thought at all that they broke the outing law, at least not the letter of the law, let alone could they be convicted of it. I don't think anyone ever has but I'm not positive about that (I think one woman plea bargained guilty but it never went to trial).

 

So I said if Libby or Cheney DIDNT know what she did there, if they didnt bother to find out, it would have been more heinous because they could have been ruining a huge operation (obviously they werent, but that's not the point, or the reason for the law). If they just did some minor asking around for what she actually did for the CIA (as if that would have been hard for Cheney or Libby), they would have known her cover was classified. And if it wasn't against the law, at the very least it was unethical and hurtful to the agency and country they're supposed to be protecting.

 

The obvious relevance of the DO doesn't actually PROVE anything, it just makes her being a covert agent a lot more likely than if she were in the DI where the analysts are. Read: Importance of finding out what her job was before you out her. It's not even unethical let alone illegal to out a straight analyst. Valerie Plame or anyone else.