Count 1 (Obstruction): GUILTY
Count 2 (Perjury): GUILTY
Count 3 (False Stateement): NOT GUILTY
Count 4: GUILTY
Count 5: GUILTY

Ooooh, dat's gotta hoit!

Why, when something legal that might shed light on Republican corruption (after all, we all know how you feel about corruption, with your upcoming book; I mean, it's not like you wouldn't be want to be fair and balanced revealing corruption on both sides now is it?) is the view taken that "leftwing loons" are going to crow about the verdict?

The man was given a fair trial, which is more than people at Guantanamo bay get, and on the balance of evidence put before them, a jury decided that four of the five counts he was guilty of. That's no victory for either side, republican or democrat, it's merely somebody who committed criminal offenses being bought to justice.

It does shed worrying light on people occupying high public offices, and may even point to (God forbid, I know) corruption in the highest offices - but that's not a victory for anyone, left wing or otherwise. That's a sign that corruption needs to be rooted out.

Another fine, unbiased blog entry. NOT.

...

is that the sound of crickets chirping?

...

I didn't follow this case and trial as much as I had originally wanted to. Just not enough time in the day. It will be interesting to hear the jurors interviewed and see how many believe that Libby outed Valarie Plame, and whether or not that influenced their decision.

From everything I've read, the judge excluded much exculpatory information that will be ammunition for appeal. In light of the publicized questions that the jury asked, as recently as this morning, I'm somewhat surprised by the verdict.

You can be happy, sad, mad or glad... but anyway you slice it... he went through our court system, and the PEOPLE found him guilty.

If you want to say that he was setup, or innocent, or whatever just remember that he went through our justice system, was given a fair trial... was given the ability to defend himself (which he refused)... was given a chance to bring ANYONE to his defense (which again, Cheney, and staff refused).

If you want to complain about the system feel free afterall that's what this country is based upon... You're freedom to present your opposing view.

No different than any other opposing view. No more important. No less. Your freedom to stand against your government's decisions, and voice those views without being threatened, or persecuted.

But relax, in the end George W. will just pardon him.

Well, lets hope he gets the same punishment as Bill Clinton did for the same offences.

Well, the jury's questions appear to have only been related to the one count they acquitted him on. I'd guess they racked up the other 'guilty's pretty quickly.

And forget about appeals - the real question is whether Bush will pardon him immediately or wait until the last day or so of his term in order to dodge the firestorm.

This goes to show you that the jury had made its decision despite the testimony.

If you followed the testimony by the prosecution, even their star witnesses were confused about what they said Libby told them. How can you call Libby a perjurer when even Tim Russert and the other reporters couldn't recall anything straight?

Well, the BBC is reporting that he is planning to appeal. It will be interesting to hear the grounds on which he believes an appeal to be warranted.

Also, if he does appeal and the appeal fails, can we expect the sentence to be increased on the grounds of wasting court time with an appeal against something the facts were overwhelmingly against?

Guilty as charged! Caucus of Corruption is right!

What a problem. Does one argue that the trial was comical, and that the verdict is unfair? if so, why are other trials deemed fair? Wouldn't that support arguments for abolishing the death penlaty, sicne it says that verdicts are sometiems unfair?

On the other hand, if the verdict is correct, and we can trust our legal system to punish people, that would suggest a Bush administration official broke the law. Can a man be infallible and make a mistake? It would seem not.

Maybe he'll be pardoned. All he did was out a IA agent. It's not like nuclear arms are that big a deal. She knew the risks when she took the job, so this should only be a misdemeanor at best.

I like this, convicted lying about a a crime no one is sure happened. Kind of like being charged for a crime you might commit.

I am sure all the righteous donks here and elsewhere with puff their chests and proclaim justice was served. Drag that man off to jail.

Just remember you to may be seated in a defendants chair for crimes of forgetfullness and may God have mercy on you if you happen to slip up.

Oh and the posted shedding tears for gitmo prisioners. GET OVER IT!
THEY ARE WAR CRIMMINALS AND NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS IN OUR COURTS.

This goes to show you that the jury had made its decision despite the testimony.

Are we then to believe that you don't agree with due process of law? 11 jurors decided that the evidence showed he was guilty. That's 11 more than the administration gives anyone it names as an 'enemy combatant'. 11 people heard ALL the evidence, not what was reported, which might have been selective depending on whether the reporting organisation was pro-republican or pro-democrat. 11 people decided he was guilty.

Oh and the posted shedding tears for gitmo prisioners. GET OVER IT!
THEY ARE WAR CRIMMINALS AND NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS IN OUR COURTS.

Says who? Bush? Just because someone says it doesn't mean it's true. That's what courts are about, to allow a group of independent people who come to the case knowing nothing about it to have the evidence for and against presented to them, and to make a decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused based on that evidence.

The fundamental part of a democracy is the assumption that a person is innocent until such time as they are found guilty. The fundamental part of a dictatorship is the dictator decides innocence or guilt. Based on that, how do YOU see the United States?

Sorry Wolf...but the Andrea Mitchell testimony was kept from the jury by the judge; so not all the evidence was heard.

Also, the definition of 'Reasonable Doubt' was changed by the judge, and that itself, is a pretty good way to get it reversed on appeal.

That was the real problem the defense had with this case: It was NOT a crime of "forgetfulness." Libby did not tell the grand jury "I don't remember." He LIED to the grand jury. He said he got his info from reporters. He did not. He got it from the Vice President and then lied about his source.

That is why he is going to jail.

Gee, I thought all the GoOPers thought that lying to a grand jury was a serious crime. Like, oh I don't know, an impeachable offense.

Change your minds all of a sudden? I wonder why...

It's entirely possible that Andrea Mitchell's testimony was not allowed because she would not be a credible (i.e. totally trustworthy) source. There is an interesting article about that at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/andrea-mitchells-prime-t_b_10973.html

Whether said article is true or not, the judge evidently decided that Andrea Mitchell was not a reliable witness. That doesn't change the verdict, nor does it suggest that the whole case would have been different had she testified.

As for changing the definition of 'reasonable doubt' I have no data on that - would you care to point to your sources for that claim?

what i find most offensive (and this is not demonstrated by everyone on this site) is that some rightwingers continue to peddle the baseless talking point that somehow, committing perjury and obstructing justice does not constitute a crime - at least not on one worthy of being convicted in front of a jury of peers. now the very same individuals who would be so quick to mock justice today are without a doubt the very same who likely were most vociferous in demanding the impeachment of a sitting president for PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

spin it as you wish if it suits your partisan tastes but recall that in the forum of public opinion, no one forgets how loud those voices cried for the very same crimes back in 1999.

I like this, convicted lying about a a crime no one is sure happened. Kind of like being charged for a crime you might commit.

And how would lying about oral sex fit into this scenario?

Ummm...the kooks here better remember that we've got a certain William Jefferson trial coming up very soon...as soon as he's indicted and for what...oh yeah, bribery along with the likes of Jack Abscam Murtha, which the libs tend to forget.

No, I feel pretty good since Libby will most likely be pardoned, but Jefferson, I doubt it.
So laugh as you may kooks, because the conservatives will ultimately have the last laugh.

BTW, first time felony, the low end or probation...that's all.
I'll be surprised if he does one day and I hope he doesn't.

The way Faux News and Rush are spinning this, I am expecting a Fox Network "Save Scotter Telethon" with comedians Rush and Hannity as host.

You have to love the neocons. One of their finest is now a felon because of lying. What is the first thing right wing radio does? Yes, bring up and repeat old lies about the Wilsons. They never learn.

But let us not forget the bottom line in all this. Because of the now proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” lying going on in the White House to justify the war, nine more of our troops were killed in Iraq yesterday. In a year Libby may be back with his wife. Some of our troops are not so fortunate.

Before the rightwing conspiracy begins, let us not forget the judge and prosecutor were Reagan appointees.

BTW, first time felony, the low end or probation...that's all. I'll be surprised if he does one day and I hope he doesn't.

So am I to believe that because someone is on the same political 'side' as you, they shouldn't be punished for a criminal offense they have been found guilty of?

Do republicans even BELIEVE in a democracy any more? Or does the term feature so many letters that are close to "democrat" i.e. the opposition, that it's repulsive to even consider?

Whether Democrat or Republican, ANYONE found guilty of perjury and thereby the abuse of the trust given to someone in public office deserves to be punished MORESO than someone not trusted with public office.

And yes, Bush may pardon him. Be interesting to see if he does. No comment at this time on how much that would say about Bush's opinion of 'due process' in a democratic country.

One question: Is THIS the 'democracy' you Republicans want to bring to Iraq? Because there's something SERIOUSLY wrong if it is...

navy - william jefferson had better be convicted. most on the left look forward to that event.

all of the other points in your juvenile and doltish comment are not worth the finger strokes.

Personally I think Libby should instruct his lawyers to not appeal...

Seriously think about it..

The last person involved in felony perjury and obstrcution of justice ADMITTED he had committed those federal crimes and today he is the husband of a US Senator, served no time in jail and has over the past few years earned $40,000,000 in speaking engagements..

hell given federal statutes have no gradations of perjury... perjury is perjury..whether a crime has been committed or not pertaining to the perjury...

Woiuldn't everyone agree equal justice for all?

Con, what you tend to forget is that perjury and obstruction of justice happens everyday in this country and the end result, if it's a first time offender is typically probation, fine and a slap on the wrist. Now a second offense would need a stronger message. Maybe prison time, but doubtful.

Additionally, Libby wasn't convicted of "outing" Plame, so remember that, if you're trying to be fair...which I doubt.

I can't wait until Jefferson is indicted to see the spin from the left.

"Con, what you tend to forget is that perjury and obstruction of justice happens everyday in this country and the end result, if it's a first time offender is typically probation, fine and a slap on the wrist. Now a second offense would need a stronger message. Maybe prison time, but doubtful."

And this makes it right?

Doesn't that more speak volumes about how corrupt the society that likes to portray itself as "world police" has become?

Juvenile as you might think Con, I for one believe that what he did was more stupid than wrong and since Plame was already "outed", it doesn't make much sense to prosecute someone for lying and obstruction when no one was hurt. What a waste of taxpayers $.

Please name one soul that was affected by Libby's lying.

navy - while i am no lawyer, i think the term 'felony' (and depending on the degree and number of counts) implies a charge serious enough to warrant mandatory jail-time - but i'll defer to the lawyers here to resolve that for us all. and does not a federal-level offense (grand jury) have additional weight?

Conscriptor_

The right wingers are just having a devil of a time dealing with the collossal irony of this verdict. Give it some time and let it sink in.

"Whether said article is true or not, the judge evidently decided that Andrea Mitchell was not a reliable witness."

It's not up to a judge to decide witness credibility, it's up to the jury. It's a question of fact, not law.

well if libby had not lied in the first place, what might that have told the grand jury about what libby knew, what others knew, and why they knew it? the whole point here (and i do agree that libby is to some degree the fall guy for a much larger crime) is that in an investigation of a crime of such a serious nature (outing a covert CIA agent), you have two choices - you cooperate, or you choose NOT to cooperate. rewarding the latter by not prosecuting it as a crime neuters the entire judicial system.

I won't need to defer since I've witnessed multiple felons having their sentences reduced due to "first time" offenses and it is at the descretion of the presiding judge to make that call.

Even though your side would love for him to hang, chances are he'll go free with a slap on the wrist. However, I've seen cases where the severity of the crime dictated the term, but the low end sentence scale for this offense is most likely where it will land.

Also Con, if he's sentenced while the appeal process is pending and he's out on bond, each day can be considered time served and by the time he's formally sentenced, if ultimately convicted, he could have served a complete sentence while on the outside.

I may be wrong, but I've seen this happen too.

Be honest though...wouldn't you just love to see him frog-marched off to a fed pen??

well - you've got me on that one. i have no idea how the sentencing is going to be meted out in this case.

even when out on bond?

The right wingers are just having a devil of a time dealing with the collossal irony of this verdict.

The irony that this right winger sees is that the Libby misdeeds are what the left said that the Clinton misdeeds were - no crime until there was an investigation.

Be honest though...wouldn't you just love to see him frog-marched off to a fed pen??

Yes. I would. Just as I'd like to see ANYONE who I have put my trust in as a public official, and who it has been proved has betrayed that trust, sent to prison.

Don't forget what this says about the man. It says he's a liar. If a man deliberately lies about something, does it not follow that he could quite easily have lied about other things? NO person who does that should hold public office, and the excuse that "other people do it" doesn't wash. No person. NOT ONE, of ANY party, who knowingly lies - and especially lies to a federal grand jury - should be permitted to hold public office.

If he'd been convicted of a misdemeanor, for example, obstruction of police making inquiries, then he might qualify for probation. But he's been convicted of a FELONY. And not just any felony, but LYING UNDER OATH to a GRAND JURY. How can you not expect jail time for that?

Why isnt Clinton sitting in jail?

Even though your side would love for him to hang, chances are he'll go free with a slap on the wrist.

Navy, what Sandy Burgler did was 100 times worse than lying (if, indeed, he did lie) about a non-crime, and all he got was a slap on the wrist. He even gets his security clearance back after 3 years, which, as someone who had a TSSI clearance for over 20 years, I find unconsionable.

I can't wait until Jefferson is indicted....

Posted by: navydad at March 6, 2007 01:37 PM

Me too. As a Democrat I realize the impact this past six years culture of corruption is having on our children. Not good.

"Why isnt Clinton sitting in jail?"

Good question. He should be. This still doesn't excuse Libby though.

which begs the question spook - why does rove still have clearance at all?

I stand corrected Con, I meant if he was "in" at the time it would be considered time served...my mistake.
Also, fed might be different than local when it comes to sentencing levels, which will be determined by the probation officer.

Wolf says:
"Yes. I would. Just as I'd like to see ANYONE who I have put my trust in as a public official, and who it has been proved has betrayed that trust, sent to prison."

You've just indicted about 20% of the pols in this country then.

Spook, I agree about Burglar, but you'll never see the left step up and accuse one of their own...hell no, instead, they nominate them for HS because they supposedly aren't suited for W&M (Jefferson). Sure the libs here at B4B talk a good talk, but when it comes to defending their own, they'd rather chew off an arm first.

Our Q would have been yanked at the first sign of wrong doing, but with pols like Burglar and Murtha, the left will defend the indefensible.

Con , your witch hunt mentality is transparent.
Rove was never charged....so give it a break.

Semms to me that this would be a really opportune time to offer Mr. Libby a simple deal -- roll over on Rove and your boss and skip time in "Club Fed."
Of course, if he's expecting a pardon (it may be a done deal) that won't work -- but it would be worth a try. I'm guessing that "Scooter" doesn't have a "doin' time" sort of mindset.

Oops, that would be "Seems."

What this trial has exposed; and what you red-meat conservatives will never ever accept, was that the data used to justify our invasion of Iraq was manipulated at best and manufactured at worst. It has also revealed that Cheney was so obsessed with disparaging a war critic that he told Libby what to say and to whom in order to rebut Wilsons op ed in the NY Times in which he challenged what Cheney had presented to the American public as a justification for invasion. (Vis a vis the SOTU speech by Bush)
Libby lied at the direction and behest of his boss and as sad as it is for him, his family, his career and his place in history it is high time that the administration is held accountable for their self serving and dispicable behavior. To argue the nuances and subtleties of this case is like being in Walter Reed Hospital. There is no leg to stand on. Libby perjured himself to protect the VP as he went after a vocal war critic. He became Cheneys Cheney.
An irony in all of this; amoungst all of the others, is in the area of a potential presidential pardon. Frank Richs' attourney when he was pardoned by Clinton was Libby.

Tom...what are you smokin son?

Ya need to clean your bong now and then to prevent build-up of those toxins you're inhaling.

A few things need to be considered for a full evaluation of the Libby trial and verdict.

1. When ever the independent prosecutor law and now the Special Prosecutor tactic are used, it is always a political question. That is because, for proprietary reasons, the administration feels that it should not direct the investigation. That results in a person not having a boss. Sure, the President can terminate the investigation once it begins but that is even more subject to political grandstanding.

2. The special prosecutor's entire job is to prosecute for an alleged violation of the law. The investigation should be as narrow as possible but that is not required. Hence Starr got Lewinsky in his lap and Fitzpatrick got Libby not for Outing a Cover Agent, the basis for the investigation.

3. The only person that could have been charged with outing Plame would have been Armitage. Plame though was not covert. So, even if he discussed her name and identity no law was broken. Or at least that is what Fitzpatrick concluded.

4. The punishment should fit the crime and person that committed the crime. As a criminal defense attorney I can safely say that this is a lower level offense. I am not saying it is not serious. I am saying that relatively speaking it is on the low end. In my experience most US Attorneys use these types of charges against a person that was not as cooperative as they could have been but there are no other charges that can be proven. Cynical. Yes.

5. Any liberal that did not support the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath that is now calling for the head of Libby or anyone else is hypocritical. There is no question that Clinton lied. He testified under oath and later admitted that it was not true.

6. Any conservative that feels that Libby is not guilty should post factual evidence to show why they do not think he should have been found guilty. Conservatives deal with facts not wishes. To do otherwise does the conservative movement harm.

7. The defense of Libby may have made a huge tactical mistake to not have Libby testify. To just say that he was forgetful is a hard case to sell. If that was the case, Libby should have testified at trial. While the jury cannot use his silence against him, he did himself a disservice by not testifying. Clearly, after hearing some of the comments by some of the jurors, if he had testified saying that he made a dumb mistake and that he never intended to thwart justice, he would have had a greater chance at victory.

8. Wanting a lenient or severe sentence will be an opinion or value based upon your view of Libby. It should not reflect support or disdain of the Bush Administration. A person should be sentenced for the crime he has been convicted of. The Judge should consider the defendant's actions, character, record, and punitive and rehabilitative needs.

It is clear that Libby's criminal record is non-existent. Under the sentencing guidelines, he is likely to receive a lower sentence. Be it probation or a short time of incarceration.

9. Calling for the Bush administration to pardon Libby is foolish. If the Bush administration was willing to stand up for a person that actually did not commit a crime than it should have done so before the trial. By pardoning Libby now, especially before the appeal process is through, will harm the credibility of the administration because it will show disregard for the jury process and deliberation. Since GWB did not call to task Clinton for his pardon of Marc Rich and others I would not be surprised though if he does pardon Libby.

10. I do think it is hypocritical of the Libs to call for a severe sentence when most of them celebrated Clinton's perjury. The clear double standard is depressing but not shocking or surprising.

Libby could get a fair trial in Texas or Nebraska.But not in DC, Hollywood or Berkeley. This should be appealed. The jurors are sorry Libby was the "fall guy", even though the charges were perjury, obstruction and making a false statement. Political, DC wants GW charged, or Cheney or Rove. As did the jurors.

Stinks.

If you mean Marc Rich, who was pardoned by Clinton; his attorney was Jack Quinn. Kinda made all the papers, you know.

One down. Three to go.

Listening to jurors statements afterwards, "fair and impartial" it wasn't.

don't mind navy tom. when confronted with an accurate, concise, well-written summation of events, the response is typically what you would expect per below:

Ya need to clean your bong now and then to prevent build-up of those toxins you're inhaling.

it is revealing of a lack of any ability to respond directly with a concise and cogent rebuttal of his own.

Having served on a grand juror twice,
I can tell you this much. If he was convicted of lying to a grand juror, the evidence must have been overwhelming. I frequently heard "I dont remember" at least 10-30 times from each testifying person.

He was convicted by a juror of his peers. The systems works.
If sentencing guidelines call for prison time, then he better get it.

As for people asking what about Clinton. He should have gone to prison. But he didnt.

OJ should have gone to prison too. But the fact of the matter is we have the rule of law.

I am quite shocked at my fellow conservatives that are hoping he doesnt go to prison. That does not bode well for your morals and convictions.
Where I come from, if you are convicted, then you are guilty.
The same conservatives that are hoping he doesnt go to prison would be screaming for prison time if this individual were a democrat.
Spook, you loyalty to the party is misguided at best. Your loyalty should be placed with this country, not a politcal party.

Gee Con, ya mean we conservatives aren't allowed to be humorous? I'm so hurt by that. Whaaaa!

Going back to Tom the stoners comments.

What data? If you're talking about WMD data, you'd better ask the rest of the world while you're at it and primarily Hitlery, Gore, Slick, Kerry, Murtha, Edwards and on and on........

Is Cheney being charged...no, so get off it.

Libby lied at the "direction and behest of his boss", well prove it then. Until then STFU because it's purely speculative nonsense that holds no water.

Con, it appears that you kooks haven't learned a bit from the Clinton years and if you had, you'd be toning down the rhetoric, but I see that you, Tom, and the rest of the kooks that post here are continually seeking some sort of advantage, whether it be political or intellectual, you continue to present falsehoods and inaccuracies that more ofetn than not are found only on far left websites.

In essence, garbarge in, garbage out.

Conscriptor,

What argument? The only person we know who lied about uranium and Niger is Joe Wilson - and he lied in the New York Times, and all Libby was trying to do was set the record straight.

Now, if Libby did intentionally lie to the authorities, then that was a monumentally foolish thing to do and he's going to pay a high price for it. 11 jurors have said he did and while the jury must be held as strong, it isn't dispositive these days in light of the OJ verdict...all too much evidence is kept from juries these days for us to rely on them 100%...and this jury, it seems, was told that Plame was covert, even though she wasn't, but wasn't told that Joe Wilson lied, thus setting off the whole chain of events. We'll have to see where the appeals go, but I suspect an overturning is in Libby's future.

concriptor--what's up with that name--maybe you need to clean your bong too.

Soon as I saw the number of comments on this thread, I suspected a gloatfest. I wasn't disappointed.

Didn't follow this folly much; I knew what was coming. And Fitzfong made this political with his closing argument. What a joke.

Can you believe Reid-tard and Piglosi, requesting Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby? I'd pardon his ass tomorrow, just because of those two slimeballs.

Hear...hear....Keefer! The reality is that Con and the rest of the libs have memories shorter than their......fill in the blank....s.

Spook, you loyalty to the party is misguided at best. Your loyalty should be placed with this country, not a politcal party.

IT, either you have me confused with someone else, or you read something into my two previous posts that was not there. Which is it?

I've never understood why it was wrong for the Administration to expose Wilson for the lying POS that he is. Are they supposed to just bend over and take it when their opponents lie and smear them?

Parse it, spin it, jump up and down, scream, yell, have a temper tantrum and question whether or not I am stoned. Libby was found guilty and the burden of proof required for a new trial is very heavy indeed, right Don? I'm not going to waste time rehashing the run up to the Iraq invasion. Cyborg conservatives are impervious to facts and reality. I don't have to "prove" anything. All the proof resulted in the verdict.
Libby wasn't just some aide, as stated on NRO, he was the VPs' Chief of Staff! You cyborgs have an aneurysm over a former president getting a bj and then lying about it, but want to give a pass to a guy who lied to protect his bosses manipulation of data that led to war. Disgusting. You have no arguement to make and lack the maturity and good judgement to accept anything other than what you choose to believe.
Lets review. Libby verdict. Walter Reed. November election results. These are not the affirmations of a conservative majority echoing thru the American population. You cyborgs are the minority. You don't represent traditional conservatives or traditional Republicans. You are some sort of sub-species best exemplfied by Ann Coulter, the comic Rush "I won't carry their water anymore" Limbaugh and the rest of your inbred gene pool.

Gitmo? Are you serious? Read slow to understand...

"We the people of the United States..."

Not "We the people of the United States and captured terrorists who try to kill Americans..."

Not "We the people of the United States and some people from other countries..."

Not "We the people of the United States and military prisoners captured on the battlefield..."

A third grader could understand that the US Constitution is so named because it APPLIES TO US CITIZENS!

I love the leftist idea that US Constitutional protections should be applied to all the people of the world. It fits nicely with the idea that our Supreme Court should cite international law in its rulings. That's some line of thinking.

I know! Let's let Iraqi citizens vote in the next election! Great!

You cyborgs have an aneurysm over a former president getting a bj and then lying about it, but want to give a pass to a guy who lied to protect his bosses manipulation of data that led to war.

First, if a man stands before God and family and takes an oath to honor a woman, and then breaks that oath, how can that man be trusted with items of less seriousness? Unless of course, that man has no faith in God or has no honor.

Second, the trial had nothing whatsoever to do with any manipulation of intelligence. The media (and apparently tomjeffairplane) thinks that's what the trial was about. Wrong. The trial was about obstructing justice and perjury. And I accept the results. I will also accept the result of any appeal, reversal or pardon.

To identify this trial as one having to do with intelligence handling by the White House is fallacious. No charges were ever brought about, which considered intelligence handling. This trial was about whether or not Scooter Libby lied under oath. This is not "what I choose to believe," this is simple fact. It is a media and leftist construction that the Libby trial was about anything other than perjury and obstruction. In fact, on several occasions the judge in the case had to remind the jury of this. Sadly, they chose not to listen.

I hope my arguments meet the maturity and judgement requirements laid out in the previous post. I tried to follow the example, but left out the name calling.

navy dad is my new role model.

William Jefferson has not been convicted of anything, but that he is not punished shows liberals are hypocrites.

Karl Rove hasn't been convicted of anything, so it would be c=grossly unfair to punish him or demand his resignation.

it would make your head hurt, if it was about truth and the good of the country, thankfully, it's all about rooting for team donkey or team elephant. Thank god when one side commits perjury, the fans will rally to explain why the other team is worse.

personally, I'd like a game without either side perjuring, or committing other crimes, but whatever.

Tom, it's us so-called "Cyborg conservatives" that are willing and able to fight the WOT so you kook libs can sit back and MMQB, while you bitch and moan.

BTW, you brought up the pre-war intel, not I. I've put that mule to rest years ago and so should you, in fact, we should all be in this WOT together, but it appears that the left's political agenda overides their sensibility scale.

Also, when those on the left accuse us so-called Cyborg conservatives of being warmongers and baby killers, it reflects directly on our men and women in uniform that are paid to break sh*t and kill people, so lighten up on the rhetoric.

Now, since you brought up Slick and the Whore who serviced him....he lied under oath...get it. If Scooter Libby lied under oath and Slick lied, don't you suppose for a second that they should be treated equally???

"11 jurors have said he did and while the jury must be held as strong, it isn't dispositive these days in light of the OJ verdict...all too much evidence is kept from juries these days for us to rely on them 100%"

Mark,

B-b-but OJ? That is truly a pathetic and laughable excuse for Libby's conviction. I really hope the criticism of trial by jury continues, because the popular movement for amending the Sixth and Seventh Amendments is not exactly inspiring among the American people...

Gar Wood

Plame was not covert, she ARRANGED to have her partisan HACK of a husband sent to Africa to collect "evidence" of yellow cake uranium.

He leaked a FALSE report = LIE to the NYT, then changed his tune when put under oath.
She and he paused for a photo op on the cover of time magazine, although she was disguised about as much as clark kent, with sunglasses on.

Much adou by the rats about a CRIME of outing her brought about this multi million dollar SCAM of an investigation of the "outing" of a NON outable low level "agent" who drove into the main gate of Langley, and entered the CIA department every day with a sticker on her front bumper.

REAL COVERT huh?

Clinton lied = pass
Hillary lied = pass
Burglar lied = pass
But ole scooter, yeah he "lied" about "outing" someone who was NON outable, to save the Bush admin from a lying hack = wilson.
PURE and utter disgrace for our legal system.

So Libby was found guilty. Get over it. Bush will probably pardon him anyway, which I won't like but I'll get over that.

There's been way too much partisan rancor for way too long (God knows I've taken part in it). We've got Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a homosexual, for Christsake. That's not political discourse, just shouting for its own sake. The American public is sick of the partisan bile. They are more worried about the cost of medical insurance, the price of gas, global warming, illegal immigration and why America is stuck in the middle of a Sunni-Shiite civil war.

So wring your hands and gnash your teeth over Libby being found guilty, or what Clinton did a decade ago, or Michael Moore movies or what Ted Kennedy or why you can't order "freedom fries" at McDonald's. But as you wail be aware that you are being paid as much attention as ANSWER protestors demanding that Mumia Abu Jamal be freed: little or none. Nobody cares anymore and you're just shouting at yourselves.

Navydad,

No one is above the law in this country. The fact that Clinton is not in jail right now does not give Republicans the right to commit perjury and obstruction of justice.

Gar Wood

gar...you're right, it doesn't. But I'm sure that you are aware that perjury and OoJ happens every day in this country and since no one was hurt except poor little JW and his non-covert esposa's feelings, it does seem a bit over dramatic for the left to praise the JS for a conviction of such insignificance. I'm not saying it isn't right...just blown outa proportion that's all.

But wasn't it your side that was condemning the repubs for the Clinton sex/lies and cigar scandal and wasn't it your side that said no harm no foul, so why prosecute?

Sounds vaguely similar to me.

The fact that Clinton is not in jail right now does not give Republicans the right to commit perjury and obstruction of justice.

That's not what he asked, Gar Weed. He asked about equal treatment, something your heroes--Piglosi, Reid-tard, Kennedrunk, et.al.--think they're above. Clinton got a slap on the wrist; Berger got a smack on the pee-pee, Jefferson is not even indicted. What's fair here?

Hypocrites...

Ah, ha, ha ,ha , ha ... YES!!!

I'm going to get drunk and celebrate!!!

Oh, but the way ... two FBI agents just came forward and verified Sibel Edmonds testimony that high ranking members in the administration sold tops secret technology to the highest bidder, laundered drug money, ignored direct warnings about 9/11, and espionage at the highest levels of government.

Round two coming ...

Navy:
I am not surprised that you would question my patriotism but I would appreciate it you would refrain from doing so.
I was unaware that you personally put the prewar intel mule to rest. Congradulations, but excuse me if those pesky liberally biased facts get in the way of your insistence on continuing to believe in the fanciful.
The WOT was not joined at the hip to the Iraqi invasion until we welded it to be that way. War on terror. War on drugs. War on poverty. War on "liberals". Blah blah blah.
And finally, do not infer that I said anything in anyway,shape or form about warmongering or baby killing. I heard my fill of that during Vietnam. Blind adherence to a failing ideology; one that has been twisted and contorted all out of its original intent is not supporting the troops. It is, in fact, the worst kind of selfishness and indifference. I am a conservative because I think. You seem to be something entirely different because you have been told WHAT to think. This thread is about the Libby trial and what has been revealed during its course and I am sorry that you cannot accept the facts and the outcome.
Have a nice day.

It would be a real nice day if most of the kook libs would go back to the Daily hogs....where your slanted view of the world is recognized on a factual basis as is GW.

"since no one was hurt except poor little JW and his non-covert esposa's feelings, it does seem a bit over dramatic for the left to praise the JS for a conviction of such insignificance."

Navydad,

Conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice are not insignificant. Our legal system depends on truth and the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are rightly considered "crimes against justice." Furthermore, we punish people all the time when the harm from the crime arguably affects only the perpetrators (e.g. drugs, laws based on immorality, etc.).

"What's fair here?

Hypocrites..."

Keefer,

The "equal treatment" you demand has no basis in the law outside of what you apparently consider political retribution. You mentioned 3 different cases with 3 different sets of facts. But Jefferson's case is as different from Scooter's as Clinton's case was from Andrew Johnson's. Letting Scooter off in the name of "equal treatment" goes to exactly what our Constitution was designed to prevent: a government of men, not of laws.

Gar Wood

Must not laugh in your face. Must not. Can't help it, [smirk]. No, this most certainly is not the last laugh,[giggle]. Can't stop [laugh]. Not gentlemanly [guffaw]. Last laugh? This is just the beginning, [snort, guffaw, snort]. Someone help me...

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA. What a bunch of maroons. Stop it your killin me.

Ya see Tom...raker is exactly why the kooks should go away...pleez...go away raker.

Your gloating is stinking up the place.

Gar, the hypocrisy is in the inequities of justice between the two parties. A reb is caught with an intern and steps down. A dem is caught with $90k in da fridge and gets a promotion. That's what chaps my ars and if that isn't an inequity, then what is??

Gar,

OJ was clearly guilty...and the jury just went ahead and said, "not guilty"...here we've got an accusation of a lie to cover up a crime which didn't happen...and the jury comes back with "guilty" even though, at worst, it is a "he said/she said" sort of situation.

I know you on the left like to believe that lies were used to get us into Iraq, but that is Alternate Universe thinking...no lies were used, the only person who lied vis a vis the run up to the liberation of Iraq is Joe Wilson, and he wasn't even put under oath.

You know Navy, I am sure you are a nice guy but why do you paint everything with such broad strokes? Other brushes are available. Why do you equate anyone who disagrees with you as a "liberal". Can you even define the term? Is it someone who is tolerant? Broadminded? Educated? I understand why you are so defensive, but you do yourself no service by making assumptions about me or what websites I visit and then have no other quiver except to make fun with manipulating words that a 3rd grader would use. Daily hogs? Come on, you can do better than that can't you? I think you would be surprised about the sites I visit. Dailykos is not one of them. As narrow a technical focus as this trial had, it was about far more in what it revealed in regards to what led up to Libby obstructing justice and perjuring himself and THAT is the broader issue. Even die-hard NRO and Weekly Standard are scrambling to put lipstick on the pig but their efforts; valient though they may be, are as fruitless as bailing out the Titantic with a teaspoon.
The VPs' most trusted and highest ranking staff memeber is now a convicted felon. A convicted felon who was an original signing member of the PNAC. (Basicly an academic theory and a poor one at that.)
Who are the real victims in all of this? Look no further than Walter Reed hospital or the bodies of the 9 American soldiers or 100 dead Iraqis today alone. Or the American people; who the administration tried to hoodwink into thinking that Iraq was somehow responsible of 9/11 and thus justify our invasion. And then, to make matters even worse, completely fail in the execution, management and post invasion planning. For someone who is a proud conservative, I am disgusted and outraged how my values have been bastardized by this administration and how they have tried to convince all of us that the curtailment of o ur civil liberties is in our best interest? What the hell are we fighting for??

No Tom, I like the term Daily Hogs and will continue to use it against those I feel are threatening our chances at victory on the WOT and that do not support our President.
If the shoe fits Tom......

Talk about broad brush strokes! OMG, if you libs could hear yourselves. We can't make up stuff like this. It can only come from deranged people that are so set in their hatred for a country, President, VP and military that in order for them to obtain the almighty political power they so feverishly strive for, they'll go to such extreme lengths that border treason that they don't even realize they're doing it.

If the truth be known, most of you libs, internally want to win this war too, you're simply afraid to admit it to yourself...period.

BTW Tom, I'm not a nice guy to libs that spew hatred for our President.

Even while Slick W. was in office, I may have disliked him and her husband, but when the policy was right, I stood behind him...as it should be.

Also remember that you and I are constituents and that our leaders voted for this war, so even though you enjoy placing blame on the Repubs and Bush, whenever you point your index finger at someone, there's three others pointing back at you. Simplistic? Yes. Truthful...absolutely.

"and the jury comes back with "guilty" even though, at worst, it is a "he said/she said" sort of situation."

Mark,

One of the main purposes behind trial by jury is to resolve which party has the credible testimony in "he said/she" said situations, which are very common. The fact that this was such a situation does not undermine Libby's conviction. If you fundamentally disagree with the idea of trial by jury, you should try and amend the Constitution. Otherwise this criticism of Libby's conviction does not make sense.

"A dem is caught with $90k in da fridge and gets a promotion. That's what chaps my ars and if that isn't an inequity, then what is??"

Navydad,

The situation against Jefferson is not over. The evidence against him is damning, and there is no reason to believe that justice will not be served.

Gar Wood

"The situation against Jefferson is not over. The evidence against him is damning, and there is no reason to believe that justice will not be served."

Then why has it taken so long for an indictment Gar? Piglosi admitted he wasn't fit for W&M, but was for HS, what gives?

If he isn't indicted, will the left feel as though they were given a pass or will they act independantly and call for his resignation?
Remember this guy was re-elected in Nov.

More lies about Valerie Plame not being covert?

Plame worked for front company with the CIA looking into the proliferation of ‘non-conventional’ weapons. Raw Story stated in February of last year that at the time of her outing that Plame was working on WMDs in Iran. That in and of itself should be bad enough. Who’s going to return Valerie’s phone calls now? But beyond that, everyone who ever worked for Brewster Jennings has been compromised by the leak. And the truth is, we will probably never the full extent of the damage done (in intelligence or in lives).

Spook,

Sorry about that. I meant to direct that comment to navydad.
I think its time I get my old eyes checked out!
:)

One thing I haven't seen commented on is where the trial took place, and the ramifications of that location on who exactly was on the jury.

It was in Washington. I can guarantee you, being a liberal bastion, the jury was a majority who have loathing for Bush and his Administration. Did you read the commentary from the juror spokesperson? He said he felt sorry for Libby, as Libby was the fall guy.

That is prejudice.

The Dhimmicrats are practically dancing in the street over this, Reid and Pelosi have made comments that this vindicates that the intelligence was a lie. How? What this was, plain and simple, was a witch hunt where a special prosecutor had to bring some charge up to justify the Millions spent. The trial was on proceedural issues.

How can it be that the witnesses, not all of whom were even heard by the jury, could not keep THEIR story straight, couldn't recall squat, yet Libby gets convicted? This is not about justice, this was political revenge. The Judge did some things which will lead to another trial.

Bush should not pardon him at this point. Let the retrial go forward.

In regard to Sandy Burglar, he will be allowed to have top secret clearance again just in time for Hildabeast to be President. We will never really know how much he tampered with documents, yet he got a till slap on the wrist.

If Libby is truly guilty of this, then he should face justice. However, this should not have even been brought to trial. This whole thing was to be about outing a CIA under cover agent. That was the real lie here. This came from the CIA looking to Cover itself for intelligence problems. This was a dodge, a decoy, from an agency that has seen a lot of changes they don't like, in retaliation.

I welcome this though. It will fire up the conservatives. Some took a vacation to teach the Republicans a lesson. Now there is buyers remorse. Dhimms will have a tough time come 08.

Mr. Noonan,

"all too much evidence is kept from juries these days for us to rely on them 100%"

Are you against the death penalty then?
it appears you must be, because to use your own words you know how inherently flawed the judicial system is.
;)

"Then why has it taken so long for an indictment Gar?"

Navydad,

I'm not sure, maybe Domenici can give the prosecutor a call and find out. Cheap shot, sorry...Anyways, nobody knows for sure whether there will be an indictment or not. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. As for his committee appointment, I am glad that the GOP is sticking it to Pelosi...According to the NYT, the appointment may be permanently on hold (http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/06/cq_2362.html).

Gar Wood

Navydad
"Gar, the hypocrisy is in the inequities of justice between the two parties. A reb is caught with an intern and steps down. A dem is caught with $90k in da fridge and gets a promotion. That's what chaps my ars and if that isn't an inequity, then what is??
Posted by: navydad"

You are confusing politics with the judicial system. There is no justice in politics. You cant be that naive to even think that.

Libby was convicted of lying to a grand jury. I dont care what the reasons were. He was convicted of 4 felonies.
You seem to make light of that fact 'because nobody was hurt'

The bottom line: He was accused to 4 felonies and he was convicted. I dont feel sorry for him.
Do you not agree that if it conviction is held up he should go to prison? Or should everyone be given a free pass for having a 'faulty memory'?

What the left does is immaterial. I hold myself to a higher standard.

I hope he gets a significant amount of prison time.
It will serve as a lesson to others: When under oath...dont lie.

If you want to criticize anyone over WJ, criticize the justice department. They are the only reason he is not incarcerated pending trial.

Lets see what the re-trial will do. Rest assured there will be a new trial. Far too many things were wrong with this trial for there not to be.

If this were really about justice, then why wasn't the person who "leaked" the non-covert, covert agents name brought to trial? That was Armitage. The CIA had confirmed that Plame worked there. The witnesses couldnt' keep their stories straight throughout the trial, and THEY are the reason Libby gets convicted? WTF? How do you do that when the witnesses couldn't keep it straight?

The comments by the juror are telling the true reason for conviction. Politics. He wanted Rove and Cheney, it's in his statement. Libby was called guilty from the press from early on.

This isn't justice. Nor was the Sandy Burglar issue justice. Don't kid yourself, politics goes on in court rooms too. This is a prime example of it.

IT

When it comes to "this" trial, there is very little if any difference, no matter what anyone says, it's truly a waste of time.

On the other hand, if he's found guilty by his peers, he should be sentenced appropriately.

Take a look at what the jurors said post conviction though and you'll notice that their political hatred for the Bush adm. boils over the top of sanity.

I don't know about you, but when one juror said "why is Libby here" and "where's Rove and Cheney?" That's all I needed to be convinced it was a witch hunt.

Amaritage already confessed to "outing" Plame and even David Boies (Algores ex attorney)on Fox news mentioned that the trial wasn't about "outing" her, but about lying and OOJ. So why all the hooplaah over the conviction? It proves absolutely nothing.

Well, this has been an entertaining thread! However, one aspect that has been missing from it is how the present verdict impacts the Wilsons' civil suit. Because you know that's coming, right? I don't know anything about the procedure, but I have a lot of questions. For example, if Libby is pardoned, does that also exclude him from civil prosecution? Apart from Libby, what about Cheney, Rove, and Amitage? Or even Bush?

Rico:
The Wilsons don't have standing to sue Libby. He didn't do anything to them, it was Richard Armitage that they should sue, but something tells me that they like him, so they won't sue.

The civil case the Wilsons are trying to pursue is to keep their name in the papers. After all, once people taste fame and celebrity, they seem to want it.

Being this trial had nothing to do with the "outing" of Plame, Libby won't have a problem. While Civil suits don't have the same amount of proof needed, the Wilsons will get more than they bargained for if they pursue it.

This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test. Plame sets it up for her husband. Why? Seems to me there is a set up here, though I doubt it will come to light.

Wilson has shown himself to be a liar, he will be eaten up in court.

it was Richard Armitage that they should sue, but something tells me that they like him, so they won't sue.

This shows how much you know about the case. Armitage has been included in the civil lawsuit since September 13, 2006.

So? Wilson is a liar of the first order. He published an article in the NYT that is refuted by the information he gave in his report. The status of Plame at the CIA, which was not allowed by the judge to come out in the Libby trial BTW, WILL have to be brought out in the Civil case. The real damage that was done to the socialist Wilsons was self inflicted, so are they going to have to pay themselves?

Being that this is a political matter, in reality, though guised as something entirely different, the Wilson Dhimmicrat masters will push them to drop it.

IT,

Actually, I am opposed to the death penalty - save for in the most egregious cases of the most dangerous people. For the most part, if we can assure that life in prison means you come out in a box, the death penalty should be dispensed with.

Gar,

I'm a big fan of juries - but real juries, not these pre-selected groups of people that the lawyers allow to be jurors.

Take the first 12 people not suffering from mental defect and that is the jury...no challenges, no tampering...just have at it, after its been explained to the jury that they are the arbiters of the case and they don't need to listen to anyone but their own conscience.

Christian,

She wasn't covert. Period. If she had been, then Armitage would have been prosecuted for leaking her name.

Just because Armitage wasn't charged doesn't mean Plame wasn't covert. Where does this claim come from?

You have to know she was covert to get charged with a crime. He leaked the name of a covert agent, but wasn't charged obviously because it's hard to prove whether he knew she was covert or not, especially when you have Libby lying about the whole thing.

How can you prove she wasn't covert period, Mark? Seems like you're in a little bit of denial.

Here's a link for an old story about her covert status? What in this story is false?

"Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

I seem to recall the left being overjoyed when Oliver North was convicted of some trumped up charge way back when. I also seem to recall he did not spend a day in jail, in fact his post military career has paid rather handsomely.

Here is hoping the same for Mr Libby. A true slap in the face to all you jerks here who are salivate at crushing a man for political gain.

Pssst, the trial was not about Bush, Iraq, corrupt politicians, it was about an unelected employee who may have lied, so get over it.

Navy:

You have some psychological issues. Your thinking is flawed. You see the world in very simplistic terms. Sorry you have such a hard time dealing with reality but I'm not buying what the administration is selling and neither are the majority of voters. Republicans lost in the midterms and Bushs' approval ratings haven't broken 30% in months and Cheneys are even lower. His chief of staff is now a felon, the war in Iraq is a faliure, Afganistan is teetering, Walter Reed Hospital is dysfunctional at best, Alberto Gonzalez has fired US attourneys so they can be replaced with Republican hacks, New Orleans is still a disaster area and there is STILL a hole in NYC. Maybe you should consider becoming a lawyer because you make a sincere effort to defend failure and you do so repeatedly. Unfortunately the assumptions that you make and your childish digs and slurs reveal just how petty and small minded you are. But then again, those traits seem to be highlights and characteristics of your withering version of conservativisim. If all of this is a game, your side lost so I suggest that you get over it. Do you find it at all courious that the result of the Libby trial is everybody elses fault? What would you be saying if he was not found guilty? Spare me your midevil theatrics.

QUESTION: Just to go back to your comments about the damage that was done by disclosing Valerie Wilson's identify, there are some critics who have suggested that she was not your traditional covert agent in harm's way, that she was working, essentially, a desk job at Langley.

Just to answer those critics, can you elaborate on, aside from the fact that some of her neighbors may now know that she was -- and the country, for that matter -- that she was a CIA officer, what jeopardy, what harm was there by disclosing her identity?

FITZGERALD: ... I will say this: To the CIA people who are going out at a time that we need more human intelligence, I think everyone agrees with that, at a time when we need our spy agencies to have people work there, I think just the notion that someone's identity could be compromised lightly, to me compromises the ability to recruit people and say, Come work for us, come work for the government, come be trained, come invest your time, come work anonymously here or wherever else, go do jobs for the benefit of the country for which people will not thank you, because they will not know, they need to know that we will not cast their anonymity aside lightly. And that's damage. But I'm not going to go beyond that...

The President can regain his base by simply using his pardon ower.Pardon the border guards,pardon Sooter Libby,pardon our troops for fighting back against the enemy.Mr.President act like you got a pair and stop calling the Dems patriotic!

Ummmm...Tom, you do need to clean your bong...son!

Sounds like a mild case of paranoia ya got there with ramblings about WR and everything else on this planet gone to hell in a hand basket, according to you.

I don't know where or how you drum up these libelous concoctions of "psychological issues" etc, but go back and read your post, it doesn't reflect anything I had said in my last post.

Try upping your meds next time.

And Tom, maybe stop posting for the sake of reading your own post. It must thrill you in some wierd hallucinagenic way and if this is your fifteen minutes of fame you really need to get a life...son!

Well... look what US Code does... it defines Covert...

The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Well lookie there... Plame doesn't qualify as covert. Why the CIA asked Fitzgerald to investigate? Was it to cover up what was a pending investigation on their intelligence failures involving both pre-911 intelligence and the Iraq intelligence failures?

Also... guess what Joe Wilson told the White House? He confirmed the UK intelligence report... and it wasn't until he was campaigning for John Kerry that he changed his mind in the NYT. He's also repeatedly LIED about how he got the job... including the lie about the VP sending him. I wonder, who truly is more credible, Joe Wilson, a man who can't keep his lies straight... or Scooter Libby, a man who didn't remember the truth the EXACT same way. That's truly shameful.

And what's even more shameful, liberal glee over the outcome.

She wasn't covert. Period. If she had been, then Armitage would have been prosecuted for leaking her name.

False.

Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged because Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward. The law states that you have to proof that somebody leaks information while knowing that that information is classified.

Because Libby lied during the investigation, Fitzgerald was unable to uncover the thruth. When Libby had spoken the thruth, maybe we would have seen Armitage behind bars now. Who knows.

Fitzgerald News Conference on October 28, 2005: "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified."

Are you accusing the Government of intentionally lying? Prosecute them.

wawillyo

Well lookie there... Plame doesn't qualify as covert.

There is one minor - but important - detail missing in your post before you can jump to such a conclusion. What WAS Plame's job when Novak's article was published? Please include a reliable source for that info. From what I read, details about her professional career are still classified....

Even the WH has never questioned her status as an covert operative. On the contrary. The president seemed mightily upset in 2003 that someone had leaked her indentity to the press...
You know more than the president?

She was a DESK Jockey Willem. As an American and a law student, I also know how to READ English, and to read the even more confusing English of the US Code.

Within TWO WEEKS of the CIA asking for an investigation, they notified the Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, that she didn't qualify as covert and that no law was broken.

THAT'S THE FACT DUDE. I'll assume you just don't get it because you don't understand American Law.

Joe Wilson was the one who talked up her job being covert. She hadn't been in the field for FIVE years. That's the law... and the government (and particularly the Wilson Family in the DC Social Circuit) weren't actively keeping her role at the CIA a secret.

I encourage you to stop reading the DU and the Daily Kos or whatever passes as journalism where you're at, and just read the law and read the fact that the true leaker hasn't been charged... NO LAW WAS BROKEN in revealing her name.

Not only that, but she violated professional ethics by pushing for her husband to go to Africa. Further, he lied on about five separate occasions on what he found while in Africa...

And his biggest lie of all, saying that Cheney was the man who sent him. And who was Cheney's chief of staff during this, Scooter Libby. It certainly seems that Libby has been maligned by the Wilsons. I'd sue them until they can't afford their new home in Santa Fe... since their 15 minutes are up in DC, they are fleeing the city.

Go read Willem... actually learn the facts.

You are just plain WRONG on your account of Armitage. Armitage knew exactly who Plame was.

The fact remains... the CIA notified Fitzgerald within two weeks of the start of that investigation that no law was broken.

That would be the Central Intelligence Agency... you know, the ones who asked for the initial investigation.

I'm through with you. Facts be damned with people like you. Go back to your "special" brownies. No matter how much the facts get in the way, you'll just bold words and act like that makes them true. Here's a hint, it doesn't.

Wawilliyo, what are the sources for the contentions you claim as unassailable facts?

Rico:
Are you playing that game now too?
You don't like what has been reported in the press and repeats what was reported in the Newspaper and on TV.

For instance, Joe Wilson on CNN: "“My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”

Further, it was telling that Joe Wilson, the guy campaigning for Kerry was really only interested in one thing with this whole thing and