|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
again, you fail to grasp the basic fundamentals of this case. |
Actually it's more like you're being willfully ignorant of the fundamentals of this case.
| quote: | Libby avoids any and all culpability because he never mentions Valerie Plame by name or reveals that she was in any classified capacity at the CIA. this then becomes evidentiary to the fact that the Administration (as far as the Vice President's office is concerned) intended no malice in refering to Joe Wilson's wife.
it's Libby's recolection pertinant only to the investigation that becomes the question. |
Actually it's Libby's deliberate OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PERJURY that's in question. Isn't that what you mean?
Regardless, let's take a closer look at a few things here about our dear Libby. According to the indictment against Libby:
| quote: | "On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5102801086.html |
Which if we all recall, he was convicted on 4 out of those 5 counts given so there is veracity to the claims made on those indictments as well as prior testimony to back them up.
The part I'm concerned about is in bold: Counterproliferation Division. I'm sure you're aware, Q., that the Counterproliferation Division is an agency in the Directorate of Operations, which works undercover according to the CIA website:
| quote: | The Directorate of Operations is responsible for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence. The current director is under cover and cannot be named at the present time.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/info.html |
Now putting the past arguments of "covert" aside for now, I bring this up because according to the testimony by Judy Miller, Libby did NOT mention Counterproliferation Division to her in regards to Plame's status at the CIA. Instead, he mentioned this:
| quote: | Q: Did there come a time following the publication of [Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's op-ed [July 6, 2003] that you met with Mr. Libby again?
A: Yes.
Q: When was that?
A: July 8th.
[...]
Q: Was there discussion at any time about Mr. Wilson's wife [Plame] on this occasion?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us what you recall about that?
A: Yes. Mr. Libby was discussing what he called two streams of reporting on uranium and on efforts by Iraq to acquire sensitive materials and components. He said the first stream was reports like that of Joe Wilson. Then he said the second stream, and at that point he said, once again, as an aside, that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at WINPAC.
Q: Can you tell us what WINPAC is?
A: Yes, WINPAC is, stands for Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control. It's a part of the CIA which is specifically focused on weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.sterlingpublishing.com/c...n=9781402752599 |
Funny thing about WINPAC is that it's part of the Directorate of Intelligence, which just so happens to be on the overt side of the CIA (i.e. NOT undercover):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...ain950915.shtml
You following me here? IOW, Libby was told by Cheney that Wilson's wife worked for the COVERT side of the CIA (i.e. CPD), but turned around and told Miller that she worked for the OVERT side instead (i.e. WINPAC). So to make things easier for obfuscators and apologists, it's looks incredibly obvious that Libby was intentionally misleading Miller as to the status of Plame, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS KNOWN THAT HE KNEW OF HER STATUS because tricky Dick gave it to him. Now we can play dumb and dumber to live long day on the fact that Libby didn't outright disclose the status of Plame by misleading Miller, which by testimony is most certainly true, but it's obvious that disclosure of such information would likely lead to a reporter doing their job and reporting that information in the press, only lo and behold to find out that such information wasn't entirely correct in regards to someone's covert status.
In that particular instance, that CIA officer's cover is completely blown. This is what Libby was banking on. It's the only logical conclusion one can make about why he misled a reporter (and confirmed it with another reporter - Matt Cooper). Or was it just another one of Libby's famous brain farts? Just like the brain fart that he even had the fucking conversation with Miller in the first place?:
| quote: | “In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative’s name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame.”
http://nationaljournal.com/about/nj...005/1011nj1.htm |
Here's some more evidence that Libby knew all about Plame. Libby spoke to his principle deputy, Eric Edelman, about an article in the New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=a%2...%2BYDplFD%3D%3D) and discussed whether or not they could share info. about the Wilson's wife supposedly sending Wilson to Niger. According to the indictments:
| 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. |
Another part of the indictment is interesting as well:
| quote: | | 16. On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known. |
Now I wonder why such info. was not widely known?
And the following on #17 is also interesting:
| quote: | | 17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a former Hill staffer rather than to a senior administration official, as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. |
Now why would he want Miller to print a "former hill staffer" instead of a "senior administration official" out of anonymity with information in regards to Wilson's wife working at the CIA? Why would he do that if she only worked for WINPAC and not the covert side of the Counterproliferation Division?
Because he's sooo incredibly innocent and just had nothing to do with willful disclosure of a covert CIA operative who's job in the Directorate of Operations was to seek out WMD proliferation in other countries like Iraq and Iran.
Yep. Works for me too. You bet.
Now again, we cannot know with certainty that Libby disclosed information that may have violated IIPA (or that the VP and President gave him such information to do so) because:
| quote: | | (Libby's lies) "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions." |
Hence the word "obstruction."
| quote: | | it's dissimilar. it's dissimilarity in Rita strikes at the heart of why the Justice Dept. filed a friend of the court brief arguing for the upholding of the Appeallate court ruling. |
Irrelevant to Occ's point. No one is arguing about the "friend of the court" briefing. As Occ continues to point out to you (in vain really), in both instances you have an obstruction of justice being performed by the convicted felons that OBSTRUCTED further investigation into the wrongdoings of either one, or in the case of Libby in the possible wrongdoings of those working with him in the VP's office. You have not explained in any manner what exactly is the fundamental dissimilarity between the two that dictates why Libby receive no jail time while Rita does. In fact I would argue based on those merits that a jail time is much more mandated for Libby BECAUSE of possible further involvement with him and others in the VP office in disclosing the cover of a clandestine covert agent in the CIA.
All this time throughout this entire comparison, one has to really wonder which crime is worse - failing to disclose information regarding gun purchases, or disclosing classified information involving a CIA covert operative who's job is to actually fucking protect our country from rogue nations obtaining WMDs.
So if you want to "strike at the heart" of anything, let's talk about the "heart" of the matter involving the ethical lapses between these two defendants.
| quote: | | and...? no one outed anybody. lets keep going in circles here. |
The only person going in circles is you. Everyone else is sitting on the sidelines watching you burn your tires out up in smoke. You simply restating things doesn't make them any more true.
But you're welcome to keep spinning in circles to your heart's content.
| quote: | HELL ARMITAGE EVEN TOLD BOB WOODWARD!!!!. he was a gossip. why wouldn't Armitage tell everyone in the frikken Cabinet what he knew? apparently he did.
noone but Armitage named names and clearances. |
Legally, you're correct. Otherwise of course there would be more charges filed against Libby. But since you like going in circles, let's again say what I've said over and over:
| quote: | | (Libby's lies) "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions." |
But once again, and I guess now that I think about it I am going in circles with you - Armitage named names but came clean and out in the open about his mistakes. Libby, however, did not.
So why did Libby fail to come clean with anything, Q? Why did he lie?
| quote: | yes we do. in Rita there was no allegation of any wrongdoing pursuant to the intial investigation. in the CIA leak investigation there was. none was found.
nice try. |
Wait a sec. Prior you said this to Occ:
| quote: | | well, honestly, you or i don't know why the Feds didn't charge Rita with any other crime. as a matter of fact, there very well possibly couldn't be an underlying crime with Rita seeing as how the Feds just wanted to know about a particular gun kit he had purchased and it's potential illegality. maybe the the prosecutor felt he couldn't prove one way or another. |
Ummm, how far shall we be parsing words here? "Potential illegality"? Well yes, we can say the exact identical statement regarding Libby's case, can we not? Was there not "potential illegality" involving the possible violation of IIPA or Espionage Act? But in this instance involving Libby, the charges filed against him were because his testimony made it impossible to see if any possible underlying crime (i.e. violation of IIPA or Espionage Act) was committed, as it was detailed in his indictment charges, and then further stated by Fitz in his May 25th memorandum:
| quote: | While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby's false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-...507.pdf#page=14 |
So in both instances, "potential illegality" was most certainly there, but could not be specifically charged because of the deliberate obstruction of both defendants.
Nice try yourself.
| quote: | | wrong. Libby never named anyone. Libby never accused anyone of being classified or covert. |
Because:
| quote: | | [QUOTE](Libby's lies) "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions." |
He did name someone, however. Sorry.
| quote: | | hows the humidity there in the feverswamp? |
How's the oxygen in the Wingnutosphere? You know what a lack of 02 does to your brain, right?
BTW, just to be clear about any arguments about no "underlying crime", let's keep in mind what Fitz was focusing on here. According to his memorandum in May:
| quote: | "The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including -- but not limited to -- Mr. Novak."
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-...507.pdf#page=11 |
Which of course lies at the very heart of Libby's involvement and why he lied about who told him info. about Wilson's wife working at the CIA. So I ask again, perhaps in vain:
Why did Libby lie in the first place then?
Perhaps one day we'll get you to answering that very simple, basic, fundamental question.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
