Scooter found guilty on 4/5 counts

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Wezil
And I will ask again - Why wasn't Novak charged? AFAICT he knowingly released classified information.

Berz - I love your proposed punishment. Sadly Libby will come up smelling like roses and we all know it.

Basically Libby was just the designated fall guy and after he does his 1.5-3 year sentence he'll be rewarded for being a team player who protected his higher ups. No doubt the cash will pile up for him.

[Guynemer]

So, will Scooter's nickname change in the klink?

I'm thinking something more feminine, like Loretta. Or Vespa.

[Wezil]

YES, i get where Libby is at, hence my roses statement.

It is Novak that bothers me.

[Berzerker]

Why wasn't Novak charged? AFAICT he knowingly released classified information.

He claims he asked the CIA for permission, and got it... Later the CIA said it asked him not to use her name.

Sadly Libby will come up smelling like roses and we all know it.

He'll go where all disgraced Repugs go when they can no longer work for "the people", he'll become a highly paid "expert" for Fox News.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Berzerker


He claims he asked the CIA for permission, and got it... Later the CIA said it asked him not to use her name.

I did not know that. Thank you. Seems a little dubious but at least there is soomething there.

He'll go where all disgraced Repugs go when they can no longer work for "the people", he'll become a highly paid "expert" for Fox News.

Good call. Can't hurt the media's rep.

[Dinner]

Hell, boatloads of Republican ex-cons get rightwing talk shows on Clear Channal as well. Roger Hedgecock, Oliver North, and G. Gordon Liddy are three just off the top of my head.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Wezil


Is this some sort of obscure reference to forcing journalists to divulge sources?

That is not the Novak situation.

No your point was why was Novak NOT charged for publishing classified information. NYT, WaPo, and LTi makes their money publicizing classified info. I'm assuming if Novak wer charged they would have to create entire wings of the pen for the news rags.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No your point was why was Novak NOT charged for publishing classified information. NYT, WaPo, and LTi makes their money publicizing classified info. I'm assuming if Novak wer charged they would have to create entire wings of the pen for the news rags.

So if you are in "the media" you can publish classified info at will? That's dicked up.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Nope there are indeed laws against it. In general though both parties are too chickensh!te to enforce them for fear of being portrayed as anti-free speech. Plus you got the whole never ending feud with the media thing to boot.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Nope there are indeed laws against it. In general though both parties are too chickensh!te to enforce them for fear of being portrayed as anti-free speech. Plus you got the whole never ending feud with the media thing to boot.

I wouldn't expect the parties to enforce the law - I would leave that to law enforcement...

I'm a huge supporter of free speech but I don't see this as a "free speech" issue.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Law enforcement usually is directed to investigate these issues at the behest of the president or congress, hence it becomes political toot sweet.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Law enforcement usually is directed to investigate these issues at the behest of the president or congress, hence it becomes political toot sweet.

Well then I think we've found the problem. I don't know how you can expect impartial law enforcement when they are directed by political masters. Nice system you got there.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Libby Verdict
The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

That pretty much sums the whole thing up. WaPo...

[Berzerker]

Who wrote that Drake?

he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

I've heard Repubs accuse Wilson of lying about Cheney sending him, but notice how the author of this editorial didn't quote Wilson? Instead the author says Wilson "suggested" Cheney sent him. Bu****, I read Wilson's NYT article and he clearly says he was sent by CIA officials after CIA officials met with Cheney about the Niger claim. And of course Wilson didn't identify his wife in the article, she's CIA and he wasn't about to expose her identity for the world. As for where his report went, it obviously went to the CIA and obviously he was under the impression the report was given to Cheney since it was his query that led to the Niger trip in the first place.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false

Thats a strawman, Wilson never said Cheney sent him, he said the CIA sent him to clarify a concern from the VPs office. We now have the testimony of several people (the author apparently hasn't been paying attention to the trial) who said Cheney was the catalyst for the trip to Niger. And leaving out of the NYT article the fact his wife (Plame) recommended him for the trip to her superiors is not a false statement, its protecting her identity and does not prove CIA officials other than his wife didn't send him on the trip...they did send him on the trip. Who cares if his wife recommended him? Seriously, who cares other than partisan hacks looking to smear him?

and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife.

Wilson is being accused of lying because he didn't out his own wife in his NYT article.

When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.

Umm...yeah? How is this sensational? Are the people in the WH vindictive? Damn right, they are... They're ******* vicious bastards. So I have no doubt in my mind they saw this as a way to screw Wilson even if their primary motive was to smear him as a liar by creating several strawmen. The author is writing about what this trial means and he doesn't even know the testimonies of witnesses?

The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name.

He would have to prove the leakers knew she had protected status, thats alot harder to do.

In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House.

Did we not just learn from this trial that Libby was a confirming source? Libby can expose CIA people because someone else did too? Wtf?

The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.

Well now, thats another strawman. The trial wasn't designed to establish her status, just Libby's lying. As for motives, the WH outed her to smear him but I have no doubt in my mind they relished the thought of screwing Wilson and outing his wife achieved that purpose.

[Drake Tungsten]

Who wrote that Drake?

The Washington Post...