I tend to think that when a senior member of the White House intentionally misleads a federal grand jury investigating the outing of a member of the nation's intelligence apparatus that it does constitute a matter of the national interest.

Why would a senior official with nothing to hide do this?

Especially when the inquiry regards a matter of national security?

And no matter how often you repeat the talking point, he did not have any mandate to seek out any specific charge. Nowhere will you find any evidence to support a claim that he did.

He was sent to get to the bottom of the matter and to find the facts and make charges if the evidence warranted it. The administration was advised to fully cooperate by the President, Libby didn't. Ergo, Fitzgerald can't find the evidence as to whether or not other charges--such as the ones you insist Fitzgerald was mandated to bring--are merited.

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ...]

10/30/2005 1:41:20 PM

Smoker4: I see what you're saying though I disagree on specifics. Obviously, special prosecutoros are appointed to a case where there's a suspicion an exceptionally serious crime has been committed. In that respect, it is expected of them to basically figure out if what people suspected happened had really happened. So sure, he was investigating a particular charge.

But I don't agree that if "more minor" things get uncovered, they should not be prosecuted. If you're questioned by a special prosecutor, this is fucking serious. And you better treat it as such and in particular answer questions truthfully. His testimony contradicts those of other people, and like I said his story is just insane (to me at least). I dopn't know all the details and if he really told the truth. But from what I read in the news, I'd say charges are reasonable.

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 1:44 PM. Reason : /]

10/30/2005 1:44:15 PM

Quote :

"I doesn't matter. He should not have talked about it at all. Again, it's only relevant to the whole unfolding legal process so long as your defense for him has become that he's not stupid. He talked a) to a reporter b) about a potentially very sensitive issue c) without even knowing the facts. If it's true, he's unprofessional."

Not really -- there is such a thing as an "off the record" conversation. And Joe Wilson's idiocy was certainly an issue that had primacy in its day; Libby needed to discuss it at some level with the press, since Wilson was doing the same.

That, by the way, is what makes Wilson such a scumbag: he was using his (and presumably his wife's) classified status to spread dirt with the expectation that it couldn't backfire on him. As far as I'm aware, the purpose of covert missions is not write op-ed pieces in the New York Times.

10/30/2005 1:45:22 PM

Quote :

"As far as I'm aware, the purpose of covert missions is not write op-ed pieces in the New York Times."

It could be if the president is attempting to mislead people to go to war.

10/30/2005 1:48:03 PM

No, there shouldn't be such thing as an off the record conversation about who may be an agent of CIA. If you need to do covert PR, do it but stay from prohibited topics. I'm sure Clinton has so much shit on Bush it's not even funny, and vice versa but they don't make it available to public because it's totally unacceptable (and illegal).

And how was he using his wife's status? Did he cite the information that she'd obtained as a CIA agent?

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2005 1:50:49 PM

Quote :

"I tend to think that when a senior member of the White House intentionally misleads a federal grand jury investigating the outing of a member of the nation's intelligence apparatus that it does constitute a matter of the national interest."

You're dodging the issue -- the prosecution decided, in the end, that there was no substantial matter of national interest. If outing Plame was so bad, why wasn't Libby prosecuted for it?

That would be the actual RESPONSIBILITY of the Special Counsel, and the reason they were given all that power.

Quote :

"Why would a senior official with nothing to hide do this?"

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Oh wait, you don't believe that when it's a member of the Bush administration up on the stand.

10/30/2005 1:52:50 PM

Quote :

"It could be if the president is attempting to mislead people to go to war."

Uh, no. The CIA is an intelligence agency (hence its name), not a political apparatus.

Quote :

"And how was he using his wife's status? Did he cite the information that she'd obtained as a CIA agent?"

Well, let me ask you this:

How often does the CIA send:

* a retired ambassador
* who doesn't work for the CIA
* with no intelligence experience
* and no experience with WMD or investigating it
* who wrote leftist columns bashing Bush prior to the mission

On a covert mission to investigate WMD trafficking in Africa, to affirm or deny the President's supposed stance?

Maybe his wife didn't help him in this regard -- but I think Occam's Razor is awfully helpful in making conclusions, sometimes.

10/30/2005 1:57:01 PM

^^ Yes, it is a serious question. You still cannoot lie to special prosecutors, fbi agents and grand juries.

^

Quote :

"but I think Occam's Razor is awfully helpful in making conclusions, sometimes."

Not to someone who's prepared to believe in that a seemingly smart and exceptionally high-positioned official would talk about matters of extremely high sensitivity without even knowing the facts, using only speculations of other journalists.

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2005 1:58:14 PM

Quote :

"Uh, no. The CIA is an intelligence agency (hence its name), not a political apparatus. "

Agreed. You would think Libby (and Bush too, but in a way not related to this) would have recognized this, and not used it as a political apparatus.

10/30/2005 1:59:41 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. You would think Libby (and Bush too, but in a way not related to this) would have recognized this, and not used it as a political apparatus."

So ... it's OK to use it as a political apparatus when you're a Democrat, but not when you're a Republican. Gotcha.

10/30/2005 2:01:15 PM

Quote :

"So ... it's OK to use it as a political apparatus when you're a Democrat, but not when you're a Republican. Gotcha. "

Ummm... no. It's okay to use it if you are trying to prevent people from dying.

10/30/2005 2:04:06 PM

Quote :

"PROSECUTOR PLANS ON CALLING CHENEY AS WITNESS IN OPEN COURT; EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FIGHT LOOMS..."

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6fi.htm

so smoker, are you and tgd in on this game together? keeping score or something? you guys are good

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2005 12:31:07 PM

Quote :

" How often does the CIA send: * a retired ambassador * who doesn't work for the CIA * with no intelligence experience * and no experience with WMD or investigating it * who wrote leftist columns bashing Bush prior to the mission On a covert mission to investigate WMD trafficking in Africa, to affirm or deny the President's supposed stance?"

*tsk* *tsk*...here I find you spreading more lies even after I started the anti-lying/antispin thead.

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=361357

Quote :

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Cheney had made 10 trips to the CIA looking for intelligence on WMDs. No VP in history had done that before. It was Cheney's keen interest that prompted the CIA to check out the Niger allegation.

Quote :

"Wilson's qualifications for the Niger mission included diplomatic credentials (he specialized in Africa for the majority of his diplomatic career), as well as past experience investigating sales of Niger uranium in 1999. Moreover, it is unclear how, according to Toensing's and O'Beirne's criticisms, Wilson's alleged lack of experience with weapons of mass destruction would prevent him from properly investigating the sale of yellowcake uranium, which is a commodity, not a weapon, and must undergo several refining and enriching procedures before it is considered weapons-grade."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510220001

10/31/2005 12:39:42 PM

From the current version of the Gellman article in today's Washington Post ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901478_pf.html

Quote :

"On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and said Wilson's trip was a boondoggle set up by Wilson's wife, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports."

From the original version now saved in the Nexis database...

Quote :

"On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source. Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and told him that Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle" set up by Plame, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006893.php

10/31/2005 12:44:13 PM

^Thanks for reposting that story here.

I had put it in the "Ministry of Truth" thread earlier.

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=313067&page=2#7752034

10/31/2005 12:48:32 PM

Quote :

"I am somewhat curious as to which "justice" was being obstructed if, in fact, there was no substantial case that Valerie Plame was wrongfully outed?"

Using this logic, Clinton was prosecuted for receiving a blowjob.

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 1:09 PM. Reason : r]

10/31/2005 1:09:30 PM

The White House announced today that it is elevating two members of Cheney’s staff who are named in the Scooter Libby indictment. The White House announced:

[qote]The Vice President today appointed David S. Addington of Virginia to be the chief of staff to the Vice President. The Vice President also appointed John P. Hannah of the District of Columbia as the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.[/quote]

Both Addington and Hannah are named in the indictment. Hannah was intimately involved in the strategy of leaking Plame’s identity. From the indictment:

Quote :

"13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."

Addington provided legal counsel to Libby in helping to divulge Plame’s identity.

Quote :

"18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip."

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/cheney-promotes/

10/31/2005 2:49:23 PM

this guy is gonna go down for cheney

what a cock sucker

10/31/2005 3:08:50 PM

Quote :

"Vice President lied as White House sought to defuse leak inquiry 10/31/2005 @ 8:15 am Filed by Jason Leopold Did Vice President Dick Cheney help cover-up the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson in the months after conservative columnist Robert Novak first disclosed her identity? Advertisement That’s one of the questions Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is likely trying to figure out. It’s unclear what Cheney said to investigators back in 2003 when he was questioned—not under oath—about the leak, particularly what he knew and when he knew it. Friday’s grand jury indictment sheds new light on a pattern of strategic deception by the Vice President and the White House to defuse an inquiry into who leaked the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to the press. Months after Plame’s identity was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak, Cheney continued to hide the fact that he and his aides were intimately involved in disseminating classified information about her to journalists. What the Vice President denied knowing The indictment against Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, clearly states that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame’s undercover CIA status and the fact that her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, traveled to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from the African country in early June of 2003. Yet the following month, Cheney and then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer asserted that the vice president was unaware of Wilson’s Niger trip, who the ambassador was, or a classified report Wilson wrote about his findings prior to the ambassador’s July 6, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times. We now know, courtesy of the 22-page Libby indictment, that Cheney wasn’t being truthful. Cheney did see the report; he knew full well who Wilson was. He also knew that the CIA arranged for Wilson to travel to Niger, and he personally sought out information about Wilson’s trip to Niger, was briefed about the fact-finding mission, and even obtained classified information about Plame’s covert CIA status."

http://rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1372

10/31/2005 3:09:49 PM

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/01.html#a5645

He made fun of Patrick Fitzgerald's baseball analogy. Stewart said Scooter was indicted on one count of not being as smart as Karl Rove.

Stewart: Doesn't anyone over reach anymore?

There was a funny video on Bush running to Air Force One.

Stewart: As long as it's not Watergate. Hurray for the indictment!



[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:27 PM. Reason : m]

11/1/2005 12:27:05 PM

Quote :

"BUSH JOKES ABOUT HIS WHITE HOUSE TEAM LEAKING Wed Nov 02 2005 10:58:31 ET ROUNDTABLE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT WITH FOREIGN PRINT MEDIA The Roosevelt Room November 1, 2005 With that, we'll start. Jorge, como yo. Q Mr. President, in Argentina, you will have a bilateral meeting with President Kirchner. THE PRESIDENT: Si. Q What I want to know -- sources of the government told me that they would ask you about more cooperation on support for Argentina, you know, in the IMF fund -- THE PRESIDENT: IMF. Q Exactly. THE PRESIDENT: Please don't tell me that the government leaks secrets about conversations to the -- Q Well, I have my sources in the government. THE PRESIDENT: You do? Okay, well I'm not going to ask you who they are, of course. (Laughter.) Q No, please. THE PRESIDENT: Inside joke here, for my team. (Laughter.) "

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

what a sick fuck

11/2/2005 3:17:06 PM

haha...thats awesome

11/2/2005 4:29:04 PM

I just heard on NPR that Scooter actually denied even knowing that Plame had a wife at one point during the questioning.

gg.

11/2/2005 6:20:03 PM

Quote :

"haha...thats awesome"

haha....national security is one big fucking joke.

Quote :

"Is Rove a Security Risk? Because he disclosed Plame’s CIA identity to reporters, the Bush aide could lose his clearance. Nov. 2, 2005 - The conventional wisdom in Washington this week is that Karl Rove is out of the woods. But while an indictment against him in the Valerie Plame leak case is now unlikely, he may be in danger of losing his security clearance. According to last week’s indictment of Scooter Libby, a person identified as “Official A” held conversations with reporters about Plame’s identity as a an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove. Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information. Section 5.1 of Clinton’s executive order prohibits “any knowing, willful or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” While the law against revealing the identity of a CIA operative requires that the perpetrator intentionally disclosed such classified information (a high standard, which may be one reason Fitzgerald did not indict on those grounds), the executive order covers “negligence,” or unintentional disclosure. That means the only proper answer to a reporter’s questions about Joseph Wilson’s wife would have been something along the lines of, “You know I cannot discuss who may or may not be in the CIA.” The indictment makes clear that this was not the answer Official A provided when the subject was discussed with reporters Bob Novak and Matt Cooper."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9899512/site/newsweek

I can't wait for that fucker to get indicted.

11/2/2005 7:41:09 PM

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, will be arraigned today on five counts, involving three felony charges, in the leak probe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110203276.html

Quote :

"While Rove faces doubts about his White House status, there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak. The prosecutor spoke this week with an attorney for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his client's conversations with Rove before and after Plame's identity became publicly known because of anonymous disclosures by White House officials, according to two sources familiar with the conversation. Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe, and sources close to Rove -- who holds the titles of senior adviser and White House deputy chief of staff -- said they expect to know within weeks whether the most powerful aide in the White House will be accused of a crime."

Quote :

"Many mid-level staffers inside have expressed frustration that press secretary Scott McClellan's credibility was undermined by Rove, who told the spokesman that he was not involved in the leak, according to people familiar with the case. McClellan relayed Rove's denial to reporters from the White House lectern in 2003, and he has not yet offered a public explanation for his inaccurate statements. "That is affecting everybody," said a Republican who has discussed the issue with the White House. "Scott personally is really beaten down by this. Everybody I talked to talks about this.""

11/3/2005 9:05:03 AM

My, my, this isn't indicative of systemic corruption at all.

11/3/2005 9:27:56 AM

Quote :

" Ex-Cheney aide pleads not guilty"

Let the games begin. I can hardly wait for the parade of public officials that will be called in to testify.

11/3/2005 10:46:50 AM

Quote :

"Libby May Have Tried to Mask Cheney's Role By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page A06 In the opening days of the CIA leak investigation in early October 2003, FBI agents working the case already had in their possession a wealth of valuable evidence. There were White House phone and visitor logs, which clearly documented the administration's contacts with reporters. And they had something that law enforcement officials would later describe as their "guidebook" for the opening phase of the investigation: the daily, diary-like notes compiled by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, that chronicled crucial events inside the White House in the weeks before the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was publicly disclosed. The investigators had much of this information before they sat down with Libby on Oct. 14, 2003, and first heard from him what prosecutors now allege was a demonstrably false version of what happened. Libby said that, when he told other reporters about the CIA operative and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, he believed he had first learned the information from Tim Russert of NBC News and was merely passing along journalistic hearsay. This was an explanation made dubious by Libby's own notes, which showed that he previously had learned about Plame from his boss, Cheney. In the aftermath of Libby's recent five-count indictment, this curious sequence raises a question of motives that hangs over the investigation: Why would an experienced lawyer and government official such as Libby leave himself so exposed to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/12/AR2005111201085.html

[Edited on November 13, 2005 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

11/13/2005 1:05:14 AM

For one of the extra credit questions on a test I gave the other day, I asked

"Name the White House staff member who was recently indicted on charges of perjury"

You wouldn't believe how many kids answered "Cooter."

11/13/2005 1:35:19 AM

National security was a joke when Clinton was selling military secrets to China for illegal campaign contributions.

11/13/2005 7:33:45 AM

Wow, thanks for the information Wlfpk4Life! Any other non-related information you'd like to share with us?

11/13/2005 10:07:11 AM

^^^ "Cooter" is an acceptable answer.

11/13/2005 12:37:46 PM

^^ Dumb people think everyone else is dumb too.

11/13/2005 2:03:12 PM

I didn't accept it.

11/13/2005 2:54:42 PM