Rebutting Libby case misrepresentations
Ethan Hemming’s July 10 letter concerning the Libby commutation, “Bush’s twin messages,” showed such reckless disregard for the facts that it cries out for correction.
Fact: Article II Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president has the power to reprieve and pardon and that this power is absolute and unreviewable by Congress or the courts.
Fact: This pardon power was intended for various purposes including political purposes (and, from the start, the Libby matter was about a political policy dispute over Iraq).
Fact: The prosecutor knew from the start it was Richard Armitage, a Bush antagonist, not Libby who leaked Valerie Plame’s job.
Fact: Plame wasn’t a covert operative — she had a desk job at the CIA and her top-secret code name there was “Valerie Plame.”
Fact: A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report concluded Joe Wilson lied repeatedly in testimony to them.
All this is a matter of record for those interested in the truth. Libby’s conviction ranks among the most egregious examples of criminalizing political differences.
With the passage of time, cooler, more objective historians will define it as the “perversion of justice” it so richly merits.
Richard Eggers, Niwot
Some more facts
FACT: Valerie Plame HAD been an undercover operative - and now, thanks to this administration's cavalier attititude about penalizing those who dare disagree openly with them, her contacts are in danger.
FACT: The administration released that name with cavalier disregard to the repercussions to Ms. Plame, her family & her contacts simply to punish her husband for having the audacity to call the administration accountable for spreading another lie about Iraq.
FACT: A grand jury determined there was enough evidence to try Mr. Libby - and a judge & jury determined he did commit perjury (and not about a sexual act with a consenting adult).
FACT: Mr Bush clearly realized that Mr. Libby could easily have testified against the member of the administration who gave him the name to release - whether it was Rove, Cheney or anyone else in the administration.
FACT: When the administration lowered the bar (starting with convincing Republicans that McCain must be suffering mental problems since he spent time in a POW camp in Viet Nam, thru bullying the opposition to the Iraq War by calling them traitors, to the revelation of Ms. Plame's status as a CIA agent), anything goes when talking about demonizing political differences - it just bit the GOP this time - and will again.
Posted by Mary on July 31, 2007 03:09 AMoh goodie mary has her shorts up in a twist. oh happy days. thanks Richard this mad my day.
Posted by on July 31, 2007 04:00 AMThe only one with their panties in a twist is obviously Richard Eggers. Why do conservatives lie so much?
Posted by conservative media on July 31, 2007 05:53 AMRichard Eggers, after listing multiple "facts" that were actually fantasies concluded:
"Libby’s conviction ranks among the most egregious examples of criminalizing political differences."
Tell us Dick, who was it that criminalized political differences by convicting Libby? Was it:
a) The CIA, who filed a complaint with the Justice Department?
b) The Republican Justice Department official who appointed a special prosecutor?
c) The Bush appointed prosecutor who invistigated the case and reccommended charges?
d) The Jury that convicted Libby?
or:
e) The Republican judge who sentenced him?
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 06:38 AMOh Mary! Get your facts straight.
The real fact - Plame was no longer undercover and hadn't been for years. She openly worked at the CIA headquarters in Virginia for all the world to see.
The real fact - The name of a non-covert agent (Plame) was released to the press by Richard Armitage, a high ranking and Democrat partisan in the State Department.
The real fact - Perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter why or for what reason. This difference is that one of the "consenting adults" you refer to was being questioned by the court about an allegation against him, and he lied about it. Libby was convicted of perjury because his story didn't agree with the testimony of several journalists. The perpetrator (wee Willey) lied in his own defense. Libby was convicted of lying about a "crime" that didn't happen.
The real fact - See the real fact above. Richard Armitage named Plame. He is an anti-war Democrat in the State Department. Read the paper Mary. He admitted it!
The real fact - Your last "fact" isn't one. It's a statement, and not a very well thought out one. But it does help to explain how you arrived at the rest of your "facts".
Posted by Guess who on July 31, 2007 06:40 AMAgain, Charles B.
What are you asking here? Mr Eggers is upset about "criminalizing political differences". He did not blame democrats nor did he hold republicans blameless. In fact, he didn't mention parties or affiliations.
So what is your purpose with this posting?
You are getting harder and harder to follow.
AF
Eggers
"All this is a matter of record for those interested in the truth. "
Is the operational thought here.
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 07:36 AMLet's be real here...
If someone in the Clinton administration had been the one to expose Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent, no one on the right would be splitting hairs over whether she was covert at the time or not.
They would be wailing and crying about the very real issue that all her training and value as an agent with the ability to be covert had been forever compromised by the actions of
political appointee.
Stop splitting hairs on this. It's dishonest to the core.
Posted by Thomas on July 31, 2007 08:19 AMThe only Fact that matters is Libby is a convicted felon.
Posted by rick on July 31, 2007 08:38 AMThomas,
Seems to me that if you want to "be real", you might start by avoiding the hypothetical. You can't claim to know what the right would do because your speculating about a strawman. It didn't happen.
We do know however that Plame used her position to get her husband sent to Niger.
We know that Wilson (her husband) used his position, and taxpayer funded trip to try to discredit the US government.
We know that Wilson wrote a nationally published article where he made false statements about his role and his findings.
We know that Plame and Wilson falsely claimed that that her "covert" status was illegally revealed.
And finally, we know that the whole premise for the Wilson trip was politically motivated and that his findings were in direct conflict with the positions taken by the governments of Western Europe and the United States.
The dishonesty is yours.
Posted by Guess who on July 31, 2007 08:41 AMmary,child left behind,those aren't facts ,you just repeated liberal lies again.wilson and berger walked when they commited major crimes against America.
Posted by bart on July 31, 2007 08:46 AMmary,child left behind,those aren't facts ,you just repeated liberal lies again.wilson and berger walked when they commited major crimes against America.
Posted by bart on July 31, 2007 08:48 AMPerhaps we might be able to end this nonsense in short order.
In the Grand Old Tradition of the Grafting Old Party:
Scooter Libby lied under oath. That's the felony crime of perjury.
Scooter Libby was charged with the felony crime of perjury.
Scooter Libby was tried in Court for the felony crime of perjruy.
Scooter Libby was found guilty of the felony crime of perjury.
Scooter Libby was sentenced to prison, fined a substantial amount, and had other coditions put on him for the period following his serving the prison sentence.
The President , exercising the power of Executive Clemency, commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence, by eliminating it.
But now, in the Grand Old Tradition of the Grand Old Convicted Felons Club, the Republicans are whining, crying, sniveling, and otherwise blathering excuses for the simple fact:
Scooter Libby is a convicted felon - convicted of the felony crime of perjury - who joins the ranks of all those other convicted felons from Republican ranks, who are the idols and examples of those seeking public office by way of the Republican Party.
It's just that simple folks. There's nothing more to it.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 31, 2007 09:11 AMGuess who,
Joe Wilson wasn't trying to "discredit the U.S. government".
He was disputing the "intelligence" that Bush used in his state of the union to justify taking us to war.
And lest we forget..or you conveniently overlook it...Joe Wilson was RIGHT.
Funny how you conservatives only seem to think the ends justify the means when it's your "ends" that your covering.
The dishonesty, sir, is right back on you.
Posted by Thomas on July 31, 2007 09:15 AMOld Grouch - Before you close the books with "there's nothing more to it", think William Jefferson Clinton.
It really - is -(word used in the commonly understood form, but needs to be stated when referring to WJC) that simple.
Thomas - Now for the rest of the story. The information presented in the State of the Union speech was the considered opinion of the intelligence operations of the governments of the western world. It is still the considered opinion of the intelligence communities of the governments of the western world. The government of Iraq had tried to obtain nuclear material from Niger. Apparently it was unsuccessful, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't attempted. The case for war was made, in part, when the President stated that British intelligence had uncovered evidence that Iraq had attempted to obtain the material. He didn't state that Iraq had it, but he did say that there was evidence that they had tried. So, was Joe Wilson right? If you believe Wilson that no attempt had been made, you can conclude that he was right. If you believe the intelligence communities of the western world, then Joe is exposed as a partisan hack.
Posted by Guess who on July 31, 2007 09:51 AM"oh goodie mary has her shorts up in a twist. oh happy days. thanks Richard this mad my day.
Posted by on July 31, 2007 04:00 AM"
You say that mad your day? You mean your WHOLE DAY? Gee, you sure get mad easily and for a long time. Mary posts such sensible comments that about the only way to show your disfavor with her is to post asinine comments like the above.
Posted by Truth on July 31, 2007 09:52 AMThat Valerie, what a woman, to have enough clout to get the CIA to file a claim on a non-existent matter and just for little `ol her.
Now maybe her Innocent desk job was her cover. Well that CIA should have known better then to start all this fuss.
Maybe someone lost the interoffice memo. You think?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 31, 2007 09:52 AMBart, no matter how many times you post the same ludicrous comments, they are still ludicrous comments. But you have my condolences on having a nonworking brain.
Posted by Truth on July 31, 2007 09:58 AMSharon is right. All that happened was that the Bush administration outed a covert agent. Surely that is a nonexistent matter. And surely Sharon is also right that the CIA did not complain because it wanted to protect its covert agents but complained only because it felt sorry for lil ol Valerie.
Surely Sharon is right and the CIA, the prosecutor and the court are wrong.
Posted by Truth on July 31, 2007 10:03 AMOr maybe Sharon you were being satirical. If so, my apologies.
Posted by Truth on July 31, 2007 10:06 AMGuess who,
What's your point?
The heading here is, "Rebutting Libby case misrepresentations".
The "Libby case", as such, is open and shut, over and done with,
The "misrepresentations" - if any - all seem to concern the completely peripheral issue of "who outed, or exposed, or called public attention to, whom". None of which has anything to do with Libby committing perjury, and being tried and convicted accordingly.
Tossing Clinton into the current posting is just another smoke and mirrors form of diversion, that has no particular direct bearing on Libby, or the "Libby case".
And, in the end, the "Libby case" is just that simple.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 31, 2007 10:12 AMBut Sharon, the interoffice memo, you know the one where she suggested her husband for the trip, is the key. The fuss was started by the Wilson/Plame duo. And speaking of her clout, how did her civil trial work out? The one where she claims harm because the world knows her name. The one dismissed by the court for lack of standing? You know, that one.
Posted by gguess who on July 31, 2007 10:13 AMGuess Who..
What Joe Wilson disputed was the ability of anyone in Niger to deliver yellowcake uranium.
Do you get that?
The president was basing taking us to war based on intelligence that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger.
Wilson was telling them that no one in Niger that could possibly be supplying uranium.
And he was correct.
And lest you forget...it wasn't like he was a vigilante. He went through the proper channels trying to get someone to listen to him on this subject long before Bush said this stuff in his state of the union.
Bush had been told by the CIA and other agencies prior to the SOTU that the intelligence was not credible...but he chose to use it anyway.
How does anyone with a lick of sense in their head defend that?
Posted by Thomas on July 31, 2007 10:14 AMOld Grouch. I didn't drag old willy boy in, Mary did. Just responded to her, and then to you. Re read my post. Then you might understand my point. If not, I'm not going to explain it to you.
Posted by Guess who on July 31, 2007 10:23 AMShould have let CIA handle this. Bullet behind the ear for Cheney, Rove and Libby
Posted by on July 31, 2007 10:29 AMGuess Who
A crappy Canadian band back in the day and a bunch of teetering old coots today.
Guess that certainly could describe our hapless poster as well.
Posted by Guess What on July 31, 2007 11:08 AMIrving "Scooter" Libby wasn't tried just for perjury.
There was also a count of obstruction of justice.
Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative at the time. This has been established and confirmed by the CIA. The agency requested the initial investigation.
Exposing her was a federal crime. This is established fact, and public record. You can say " I don't believe she was covert" all you want. It doesn't change THE FACTS.
Fitzgerald and the grand jury were unable to conclusively determine who leaked her identity BECAUSE of Libby's obstruction of justice. Thus the conviction.
This is the problem with you right wing-nuts. You're intellectually dishonest.
Excellent comments Mary. However we must remember that Richard Eggers cannot distinguish facts from opinions nor can he understand the difference. The same can be said for those who support his position.
It must be noted that the Republicans always cry about upholding the rule of law when someone of another party is accused of some evil doing, but when it is one of their own, it is entirely different. They then go in to the mode of protecting those who do commit crimes and try to convince the rest of us that it was not a crime.
It should be noted that since the prison sentence of Libby has been commuted by the most criminal President this nation has ever had, he now has no incentitive to cooperate with the prosecution in an attempt to lessen his sentence. It is not unreasonable to assume that to be the reason for the commutation by Bush.
An expample of how the criminal Republican mind works is expressed very well in the comments by Eggers and those who support his position. They are unable to distinguish between lying about a private sexual matter,and a matter wherein not only a CIA agent was put in jeporady, but also those who worked with her and those whom she had contact with during her covert status. But then to the right wingers, those lives are expendable in order to save one of their own.
Posted by A True American on July 31, 2007 11:58 AMLibby was found guilty in a court of law. The prosecution was able to prove their case to the jury and the defense couldn't counter that. Was this a political witch hunt -- a sacrificial lamb taking the fall for the administration? Who knows - he was convicted in court; end of story. He has the option to appeal.
Bush commuted the sentence and may even provide a full pardon. Politically motivated? In bad taste? Doesn't matter, it was (will be) legal. Want to compare this case to Clinton's pardons, etc? Doesn't matter; what Clinton did was legal also.
Outside of mental masturbation what's the point in continually restating the obvious facts, opinions and personal biases? Let it go and start discussing some positives that our do nothing government should be pursuing; and then start putting pressure on your elected fool to actually something beyond advocating just for their party.
Posted by on July 31, 2007 12:02 PMWho has a copy of the interoffice memo suggesting Plames husband?
Could we please read that.
Her civil case, well, that isn`t the subject here. sufficient to the day is the Republican evil. Let us hold that discussion for tomorrow.
Truth, no satire today, this wierd little subject was the portent for larger issues. The larger issues are what matter but large crimes often start with little matters.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 31, 2007 12:21 PMHey keith - I see you call yourself "bart" now. We've missed your weird wingnut sense of humor - welcome back!
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 12:45 PMHas anyone actually heard or seen any information on the "covert" missions that Plume was allegedly on. With her 'cover' supposedly blow, that information would no longer need to be classified would it?
I keep hearing she was working out of the CIA office, coming to and from work everyday
Was that her "cover", as a CIA agent? I always thought the CIA had a little more imagination then that. Maybe, like a businesswomen or just a tourist, but posing as a CIA agent while working undercover as a CIA agents sounds a little difficult to believe.
Guess Who,
You addressed the remark about "William Jefferson Clinton" directly to me, as the posting was printed. So far as I can see, that's just tossing it in, since you also referred to my statement about "nothing more to it", and "closing the books" therewith.
Insofar as the "Libby case" be concerned, what does Clinton have to do with it? What's your point.
If i "don't get it", it's because there isn't one there in the first place. Just smoke and mirrors diversion to keep on excusing the inexcusable.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 31, 2007 02:13 PMThomas. When all else fails, send in the Joe Wilson said so defense.
While Wilson was drinking mint tea with the locals, the US, French and British intelligence communities were telling the President and the heads of state of their countries something far different than Joe Wilson. For all we know, the President may have been informed about the concerns raised by Wilson and dismissed them due to the conflicting high level intelligence reports he was receiving. Wilson had no record in this area, and he certainly didn't have the level of credibility of the intelligence community.
You send a political appointee on a political mission and you get a political answer. What's so hard to understand about that?
Posted by Guess who on July 31, 2007 02:37 PMSome people just can't bring themselves to believe that we have thugs and mafia-like goons in the White House. These Bush-lickers just can't hold that idea in their little heads, it makes them feel too bad, and have to think about their own miserable beliefs.
"We'll get you. And your family, too"
-----Vito Correleone
Truth, sorry, that was satire.
I mean why would the CIA get involved in what the republics call a small matter. Plame and her job, whatever it was, is gone now.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 31, 2007 05:24 PMPlame lost her job? When did that happen Sharon? You would think that with all the pages of ink written about this liberal soap opera, we would have heard about Valarie getting tossed out in the street. My how lost she must be. No more international trips to practice her spy-craft. No more cushy job recommendations for her husband. No more executive parking spaces for her. Nope. All gone. And what about her health insurance? Gone too. Poor dear. We just barely got to know her.
Posted by guess who on July 31, 2007 09:18 PMMandark. I was going to comment about your comment, but I can't get past the "bush-licker" thing. Hell, if that's politics, count me in. Who needs earmarks when the real political payola is some good old fashion bush-licking. History tells us that a certain former President was a prolific bush-licker, and a Democrat to boot. Al Gore emitted so much carbon while he was bush-licking, he personally caused the man-made global warming crisis. Rumor has it that Harry Reid had to buy a bush prosthetic so he could lick his own bush. But the burning question is, will the current Presidential candidate named Clinton like bush-licking as well as the former?
Posted by Guess who on July 31, 2007 10:36 PMJust because Plame's cover was blown, it doesn't follow that the CIA would just declassify everything she was working on...try to think a little here.
They did say that one of the things she was involved in heavily was weapons of mass destruction proliferation in IRAN.
You can easily look around on the "internets" and find out the differences between official and non-official cover.
Plame may have lost her effectiveness and that would hurt all of us, but who cares if we can get on a forum and be cute.
Guess who, take your cuteness and argue with the CIA. No one benefited from Cheney, scooter etal and their antics, now did they.
Is your world a better place knowing that folks like these can even mess with the CIA doing business.?
In some way that we may not know for years, she was an asset to our efforts to keep an eye on the Middle East.
She was an asset, you, GW are just as ass.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 1, 2007 02:41 PMRather than using the rumor mill spurred on out of bigotry toward the Bush administration, people should use a bit of intellectual honesty by listening to what Robert Novak has to say about this issue since it was Novak who first heard about Valarie Plame.
On Monday, July 7, 2003, the last thing on Robert Novak’s mind was Joe Wilson. Francis Townsend was. She was a Deputy National Security Advisor in the Bush administration who was a hold-over from the Clinton administration. She was an insider with former Attorney General Janet Reno. Novak decided to write a column about this curious situation of a known liberal holding such a high position in the Bush administration hired by the CIA. During his investigation about Francis Townsend, Novak heard a lot of talk about Joe Wilson and found it curious as to why someone like Joe Wilson would be sent to Niger by George Bush and Dick Cheney. As the story unfolded, Wilson was not sent to Niger by anyone in the Bush administration. That is very relevant to the truth of this entire story.
When talking to people to gather information for his column Novak interviewed Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. That interview was scheduled long before Wilson’s trip to Niger was unveiled. But after the trip was unveiled, Novak decided to ask Armitage about it. He asked why if the CIA wanted to get information about yellow cake uranium in Niger and its possible connection with Iraq they would send someone with absolutely no background in intelligence gathering, no knowledge of WMD and who had worked in the Clinton Whitehouse. Unbeknownst to Novak at the time of the interview, Wilson had also worked as advisor to the Gore campaign for president against George W. Bush.
Novak: “Armitage answered off-handedly, ‘Well, his wife works for the CIA and she suggested it.’
Novak: “She works for the CIA?!”
Armitage: “Yes, she works in the Division of Weapons Proliferation. Her name is Valerie.”
Novak said that is as far as the conversation about it went.
Conspiracy theorists spin the story that there was a concerted effort on the part of the Bush administration to uncover Valarie Plame’s identity out of revenge for Wilson’s criticism of the Iraq War. Armitage was not part of any Bush conspiracy, but just was answering a question about why Joe Wilson was the one selected to go to Niger.
Novak: “Of course, the irony is that Armitage was an internal critic of the Iraq policy inside the administration. That was no secret to anybody. And I was an outside critic. I had both in my column and on television said that I thought it was a bad idea to attack Iraq. So, the idea that we were punishing anybody for being critical of Iraq is shear nonsense.”
Scotter Libby was also simply answering a question posed to him by Judith Miller about why Joe Wilson was chosen to go to Niger. All Libby did was explain how that choice was made. Novak went on to say that he tried to get Libby to confirm information on Valari Plame, and Libby was not helpful with Novak’s request.
How it is that Libby got confused about what he had said to Judith Miller a few years hence is not clear to me. But what is clear is that he was brought up on trumped up charges for something he did not do, and that is uncovering the identity of Valarie Plame. In fact, he was trying not to uncover her identity to Robert Novak, as Novak himself has stated.
Mountain Cat said of Scooter "The Felon" Libby:
"...he was brought up on trumped up charges for something he did not do..."
Right. And that's why he was convicted and sentenced by a jury who knew a hell of a lot more about the case than you...
The truth of your opinion here is: He's "your guy", so he's "not guilty".
Posted by Charles B on August 2, 2007 09:06 PM