Valerie Plame leaker identified

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Sinner

He will receive a presidential pardon and not spend a second in prison.

cheney or libby?

- js.

[Sinner]

I don't know why Cheney would need one, but if all Sandy Berger got was probation for destroying original classified documents from the National Archives that were critical into the inquiry about 9/11, how could Libby get any thing more? Even if he does he will appeal until 08 and then will receive a pardon.

And Jack isn't it ironic how liberals are pretending that perjury and obstruction of justice suddenly matter?

[albed]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

cheney or libby?

- js.

Jack's too fucked up to even understand who you're talking about.

[theknife]

the money quote, from one of the 12 people who had the whole thing layed out for them in minute detail:

"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'" juror Denis Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy."

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

the money quote, from one of the 12 people who had the whole thing layed out for them in minute detail:

Fallguy For Joseph C. Wilson IV

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

In other words, he lied about how he came to be in Niger in the first place, and his wife was further complicit in the lie.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

In other words, he lied about the conclusions of his own report, and further lied about the information that was given to President Bush on the matter.

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

In other words, Plame had already made up her mind about the truthfulness of the report, and dispatched her husband to Niger not to investigate, but specifically to come back with debunking evidence. From the committee's report, the information Wilson returned with actually strengthened the administration's case, so he just lied about what its conclusions were to the press.

In the most stunning lie of all, the committee caught Wilson in a lie of "Christmas in Cambodia Under Nixon in '68" proportions:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Whooops.

Indeed, Wilson's mendacity was so stunning that even the "Vast Right Wing Conspirators" at the Washington Post ultimately concluded that whoever leaked Plame's name was ultimately doing so to shed light on the fact that Wilson had no business being in Niger in the first place, and that a political agenda drove him there - rather than out of a vindictive desire to exact retribution on Wilson for exposing the truth:

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.

So let's review - Wilson lied about how he got to Niger, he lied about seeing a report that didn't even exist at the time, he lied about the conclusions of his own report(!), he lied about what the administration had been told, and his wife, Valerie Plame, specifically sent him on a mission to intentionally debunk a claim, not to find facts or perform inspections. I'd say the WaPo's conclusion is pretty sound on this one.

When the White House learned that a serial liar within their administration was being given op-ed space in the New York Times, and had the friendly ear of numerous journalists, in order to specifically contest the official administration policy, it is apparent that the Vice President asked a question that would have occurred to any halfway intelligent individual: "Who the heck is this Joe Wilson who is [among other things] claiming that I've seen a document which I haven't?" And thus set in motion a chain of events which led to today's conviction of Scooter Libby.

[theknife]

gee, left out a few things, no?

And thus set in motion a chain of events which led to today's conviction of Scooter Libby

without even getting into your unsourced op-ed, it somehow glosses over the fact that the "chain of events" includes the Vice Prez and associates disclosing the identity of a NOC to half a dozen reporters - and then lying about it to federal investigators.

so it actually isn't even about Joseph Wilson at this point. Libby got convicted by 12 people - not bloggers, politicos, op-ed writers, talking heads, or commentators -12 people who now know more about this matter than anybody....had the entire scenario laid out in excruciating detail, then took ten days to analyze and rehash every bit of it...and these people not only decided that Libby committed four felonies, but wondered why the other culpable people got to walk away.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

12 people who now know more about this matter than anybody....

I suppose your criminal record precludes you from serving on a jury so I'll forgive your ignorance and just tell you that jurors don't get to "know" everything about a matter but only what's presented in court. And certain aspects of a case are often forbidden to be mentioned before them.


But fuck it; you're once again showing your warped liberal bias by even thinking that without sworn testimony from Plame and Wilson, jurors can have a complete picture of the matter.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Sinner

And Jack isn't it ironic how liberals are pretending that perjury and obstruction of justice suddenly matter?

it certainly matters when you're convicted doesn't it? just ask the wall street journal, or ask the president of the united states, a man whose lack of sympathy for strangers convicted or accused is as legendary as it is brutal.

it may be ironic that many of the strident "law & order" types who wanted clinton destroyed for obscuring an affair between consenting adults want freedom "now" for a man who is guilty of lying to the fbi about a "smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that president bush used to justify invading iraq" and that has killed so many.

well, that's really not irony. unfortunately it's business as usual.

and pay no attention to our fouled trolls; we will see how far this goes, and where it leads, and who and how many in the end will seek the pardons so similar to those bush senior handed out like bon-bons to iran-contra felons...

in the meantime, "it was still a breath of fresh air to see someone in this administration, which specializes in secrecy, prevarication and evading blame, finally called to account."

yes it was.

the best is yet to come.

- js.

[albed]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

who wanted clinton destroyed for obscuring an affair between consenting adults
- js.

So that's what liberals call lying in speeches and perjuring in court, all on videotape - "obscuring".


No bias in their drug shriveled, propaganda saturated minds.

[JackSpratts]

trolling again albed...perjury in this case is a legal term as you well know. something mr. libby is familiar with now that he's been convicted on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice. after a forty million dollar plus witch hunt, clinton wasn't convicted of anything, so no, he wasn't guilty of perjuring himself in the legal sense. as for the moral sense, when the majority of those practicing fellatio didn't consider the activity "sex" and the question was specifically about sex, the argument that clinton lied ends there as well.

i wondered why the prosecutors simply didn't ask him if he had "physical contact" with the woman, and if so, what variety...they could have done so and had clinton denied it he clearly would have set himself for perjury, although i have my doubts as to whether he would have "obscured" an answer to such a direct question. but it didn't happen and we'll never know. for whatever reason they demurred.

in any event we all knew the genesis of this. it was the continuing attempt by the right and the supreme court to subvert democracy and was itself far more harmful to the republic than any awkward verbal gymnastics clinton may have employed to defend himself and the office of a duly elected president.

in spite of trolls trying continuously to confuse this (and so many other current republican political disasters) with deliberately misleading history lessons on clinton, it is about valerie plame's leakers, where the subversion continues unabated, and with bush and cheney at its head.

of course thanks to bush 1, jr. has better advisors. this man is a sociopath who doesn't understand truth beyond the fact he senses it's dangerous. when the 9/11 commission requested he swear in and testify under oath this president flatly refused.

so i won't call him a perjurer. he isn't one - yet.

for now he's just a liar. the highest in the land.

- js.

[Sinner]

Bill Clinton lied in a civil suit. His purpose was deny justice to Paula Jones. There was about 1500 people then held in federal prisons by the executive branch which he headed for the exact crimes that he committed. A federal judge then ordered President Bill Clinton to pay $90,686 for giving false testimony in the civil sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. Clinton did not fight the ruling and agreed to pay the court $1,202 for expenses associated with a deposition and for "reasonable costs incurred by plaintiffs" as a result of his actions. Now The payments were in addition to the $850,000 Clinton paid to Jones to settle her lawsuit.

Again funny how being a liar all of a sudden matters to liberals.

Libby is guilty because he lied in an investigation which the prosecutor already knew was bogus. Why do you think he was not put of trail for outing her? Answer me that.

I also may go back on saying he will receive a pardon because I believe you have to admit guilt to get one. He will be better off getting cleared in an appeal. Why didn’t the judge allow the impeachment of Russert with tape, or allow the defense to call Mitchell to the stand??? But if the appeals fail I guess a pardon is just as good...

[RDixon]

.

[RDixon]

How Rove escaped the same fate as Libby.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...scooter_libby/

[albed]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

after a forty million dollar plus witch hunt, clinton wasn't convicted of anything,

Being pronounced "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" by a long stretch, especially when the pronouncement isn't made by the judicial branch but by a politically dominated institution.

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

when the majority of those practicing fellatio didn't consider the activity "sex" and the question was specifically about sex, the argument that clinton lied ends there as well.

Got a link for that odd conclusion? You have to be really warped to think fellatio isn't sex, so you've got no problem I suppose but are you really in the majority?

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

this man is a sociopath

Liberal Education Hour -
http://www.answers.com/sociopath&r=67

so·ci·o·path (sō'sē-ə-păth', -shē-) pronunciation
n.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

Wow, if that doesn't fit President StickHisDickInAnythingButHillary to a tee.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

Being pronounced "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" by a long stretch

Sorry to tell you it does.
You know why?
Of course you do.
Because you are INNOCENT till proven guilty.

[albed]

The term is "presumed innocent" in this country beerboy.


It means you have to be treated as if innocent, not that you are.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

The term is "presumed innocent" in this country beerboy.


It means you have to be treated as if innocent, not that you are.

I am innocent

[daddydirt]

Judge Dismisses Plame Lawsuit

whiners and whingers may commence whining and whinging now.

[vernarial]

So pretty much nobody is gonna get into trouble for the leak. Typical D.C.

[multi]

Plame Suit Dismissed by Controversial GOP Loyalist

Since his tenure on the federal bench began six years ago, Bates's legal opinions and rulings supporting the administration's executive powers stand in stark contrast to his legal work as an assistant US attorney. He worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr prosecuting President Clinton's Whitewater investment deals.

In 1997, Bates successfully argued for the release of thousands of pages of White House documents related to Hillary Clinton's conversations about Whitewater.

In January 2003, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that the judge was a hypocrite by pursuing access to White House documents when Clinton was in office while supporting Cheney's claims of executive privilege in refusing to turn over his energy task force documents to Congress.

"When that guy was working for Ken Starr, he wanted to go open the dresser drawers of the White House," Leahy said. "I guess it's a lot different when it's a Republican vice president."

Since 2001, Judge Bates has been a staunch supporter of the White House's assertion of executive privilege on a wide range of controversial legal challenges by third parties.

Bates, who was appointed by President Bush in 2001, first came to the public's attention in December 2002 when he dismissed a lawsuit filed against Cheney by the Government Accountability Office that sought access to the vice president's energy task force documents.

In that case, Bates threw out the GAO's lawsuit, stating that the GAO lacked the authority to sue the vice president, a ruling that was criticized by the legal community. On Thursday, Bates dismissed the Wilsons' lawsuit for similar reasons.

He wrote that, as a technical legal matter, the Wilsons can't sue under the Constitution. Bates added that the defendants had the right to rebut criticism aimed at the White House by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who accused the administration of twisting prewar Iraq intelligence. He said the leak of Plame's undercover CIA status to a handful of reporters was "unsavory" but simply a casualty of Wilson's criticism of the administration.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence by speaking with members of the press, is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."