| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2005 02:27:32 AM · #1 |
Update 04/07/06
Because it was brought up in another in which false and misleading statements were made about it, I thought it could and should use its own thread.
This is the 1st time a sitting White House official has been indicted of a crime in over 100 years.
A few sources of information on the case:
The Mainstream:
CNN special reports
NY Times Leak Timeline
Washington Post Leak background
The non mainstream but better:
peer reviewed Wikipedia - The Plame Affair and The CIA Leak Grand Jury Investigation
The Huffington Post has been constantly covering this story and is considered one of authorities on it
Think Progress - Leak Scandal Players Involved
Think Progress does some debunking of popular right wing lies
The bad post from another thread:
Originally posted by poster:
Look at the Plame affair in which Libby was just indicted. First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife. Second, everyone knows that she was NOT and undercover operative of the CIA. SO, even if her name and employer WERE revealed, no law was broken. BUT, at the time, it was not evident that she was not an undercover operative. |
This is pure bullshit.
Firstly, Wilson̢۪s wife recommending him for the assignment has nothing to do with anything. He was sent by the CIA per Dick Cheney's request to investigate the yellow cake charges against Saddam because he was a good man for the job.
Secondly, she WAS an undercover CIA operative. Not even her friends or next door neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, they were questioned.
This information is becoming more well known, even on the 24 hour news networks. But the right wing spin is strong as has been demonstrated.
I'll also post 2 video clips to clarify because people don't seem to read much:
US Department of Justice Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's 2pm press conference after Libby's indictment
ex CIA Larry Johnson who went to CIA school with Valerie Plame weighs in with CNN Wolf Blitzer
Message edited by author 2006-04-08 13:39:50. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 04:32:39 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Because it was brought up in another in which false and unbacked statements were made about it, I thought it could and should use its own thread.
This is the 1st time a sitting White House official has been indicted of a crime in over 100 years.
|
I'm curious what your point is here; why did you boldface this statement?
1. To show that criminal behavior is almost unheard of in the White House?
2. To show that the indictment is "politically motivated" because why else would it have happened at all?
3. (add your own explanation here)
I'm not "arguing" anything, I just wonder what you see as the relevance of this staement to the case at hand.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:18:56 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Because it was brought up in another in which false and unbacked statements were made about it, I thought it could and should use its own thread.
This is the 1st time a sitting White House official has been indicted of a crime in over 100 years.
|
I'm curious what your point is here; why did you boldface this statement?
1. To show that criminal behavior is almost unheard of in the White House?
2. To show that the indictment is "politically motivated" because why else would it have happened at all?
3. (add your own explanation here)
I'm not "arguing" anything, I just wonder what you see as the relevance of this staement to the case at hand.
Robt. |
I wanted to emphasize how important this case is. And as one can see by the lack of posts in this thread, more people need to see what̢۪s going on here.
But why don't you comment on the meat of this matter instead of one bold line I made?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:25:06 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I wanted to emphasize how important this case is. And as one can see by the lack of posts in this thread, more people need to see what̢۪s going on here.
|
Lack of desire to discuss political issues with you ad nauseam is in no way indicative of what people "need to see." Most people opt not to turn to a rant forum on a photography site as their source of important information.
Message edited by author 2005-10-29 14:29:02. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:28:18 PM · #5 |
Politically misdoing and corruption is as surprising as super models using drugs. Everybody goes into a tizzy when someone gets caught, but fails to realize that most do it.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:35:53 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I wanted to emphasize how important this case is. And as one can see by the lack of posts in this thread, more people need to see what̢۪s going on here.
|
Lack of desire to discuss political issues with you ad nauseam is in no way indicative of what people "need to see." Most people opt not to turn to a rant forum on a photography site as their source of important information. |
Nobody is wanting to see anyone else throw up here.
Like I said, false statements were made about this important case here, which in turn derailed another thread, so I made this thread.
Do you have any comments about the case MK? Did you happen to read any of my thread or view any of the links or video I provided? |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:38:42 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Politically misdoing and corruption is as surprising as super models using drugs. Everybody goes into a tizzy when someone gets caught, but fails to realize that most do it. |
Again, this shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of this case. Trying to lump this together with less serious corruption. Though of course its all bad, this one is over 100 years bad.
This case is about corruption that put in jeopardy the national security of the United States and took it to war.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:43:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Politically misdoing and corruption is as surprising as super models using drugs. Everybody goes into a tizzy when someone gets caught, but fails to realize that most do it. |
Again, this shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of this case. Trying to lump this together with less serious corruption. Though of course its all bad, this one is over 100 years bad.
This case is about corruption that put in jeopardy the national security of the United States and took it to war. |
So lying to a grand jury took this country to war?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:46:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
So lying to a grand jury took this country to war? |
Arrgg.. There is hours worth of reading information in my OP and 2 very informational short video's to help you understand. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 05:01:14 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I wanted to emphasize how important this case is. And as one can see by the lack of posts in this thread, more people need to see what̢۪s going on here.
But why don't you comment on the meat of this matter instead of one bold line I made? |
Because my opinions are not yet "informed" enough to post them, basically. I was just genuinely curious why you had boldfaced that; I'm in no way disputing that it's WORTH boldfacing, I just wondered which of many reasons for boldfacing it might be yours.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 05:52:15 PM · #11 |
Link to original article by Joseph C. Wilson, IV, as excerpted below:
  ...  But on July 14, 2003, our lives were irrevocably changed. That was the day columnist Robert Novak identified Valerie as an operative, divulging a secret that had been known only to me, her parents and her brother.
    ...
    It was payback - cheap political payback by the administration for an article I had written contradicting an assertion President Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union address. Payback not just to punish me but to intimidate other critics as well.
    Why did I write the article? Because I believe that citizens in a democracy are responsible for what government does and says in their name. I knew that the statement in Bush's speech - that Iraq had attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium in Africa - was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa (at the request of the CIA) and from two other similar intelligence reports. And I knew that the White House knew it.
    Going public was what was required to make them come clean. The day after I shared my conclusions in a New York Times opinion piece, the White House finally acknowledged that the now-infamous 16 words "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address."
    ...
    Valerie was an innocent in this whole affair. Although there were suggestions that she was behind the decision to send me to Niger, the CIA told Newsday just a week after the Novak article appeared that "she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." The CIA repeated the same statement to every reporter thereafter.
...
   The attacks on Valerie and me were upsetting, disruptive and vicious. They amounted to character assassination. Senior administration officials used the power of the White House to make our lives hell for the last 27 months.
    But more important, they did it as part of a clear effort to cover up the lies and disinformation used to justify the invasion of Iraq. That is the ultimate crime.
    The war in Iraq has claimed more than 17,000 dead and wounded American soldiers, many times more Iraqi casualties and close to $200 billion.
    It has left our international reputation in tatters and our military broken. It has weakened the United States, increased hatred of us and made terrorist attacks against our interests more likely in the future. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 06:07:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Because my opinions are not yet "informed" enough to post them, basically.
Robt. |
I can respect that. Sorry for being snappy.
I think you will find more than enough information in my OP to build one.
Also, here is todays NY Times article on the case; A Prosecutor's Focus Shifted to a Cover-Up
Also, because I have been bashed for posting whole articles here because of copywrite, I'm just posting this link.
Yes you have to register to view NY Times articles online. But ITS FREE TO REGISTER and its the NY Times.. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 06:31:33 PM · #13 |
You can find reprints and/or links to a broad variety of articles and documents related to this on this page at Truthout.org
I notice they have links to Mr. Fitzgerald's official statement and the indictments themselves -- here's a rare chance to read it for yourself. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 06:41:29 PM · #14 |
Have you read the indictment? If you care about what Libby is really being accused of you may want to read it.
//www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyidict.pdf
It does not accuse him of leaking the information!!! He is basically accused of lying because the things he said do not match 100% to the things he had in his notes (which he gave to the prosecutors).
So basically, he is being charged for lying about a crime they are not accusing him of committing. That really puzzles me??? He lied about not doing it, but we can̢۪t prove he did it???
Now, if he thought he may have committed a crime and he lied to cover his ass, I say fry the SOB. I have no sympathy for someone the lies to a grand jury to cover their ass. This might be the case (we'll see what happens in court), but seeing as he gave his notes to them I find it hard to believe he would be that stupid (not impossible though).
Also, I think I can recall a past president found guilty of the exact same crime (lying to a grand jury during an investigationâ€Â¦), but no one ever indicted him for it?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 07:47:01 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Have you read the indictment? If you care about what Libby is really being accused of you may want to read it.
//www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyidict.pdf
It does not accuse him of leaking the information!!! He is basically accused of lying because the things he said do not match 100% to the things he had in his notes (which he gave to the prosecutors).
So basically, he is being charged for lying about a crime they are not accusing him of committing. That really puzzles me??? He lied about not doing it, but we can̢۪t prove he did it???
Now, if he thought he may have committed a crime and he lied to cover his ass, I say fry the SOB. I have no sympathy for someone the lies to a grand jury to cover their ass. This might be the case (we'll see what happens in court), but seeing as he gave his notes to them I find it hard to believe he would be that stupid (not impossible though).
Also, I think I can recall a past president found guilty of the exact same crime (lying to a grand jury during an investigationâ€Â¦), but no one ever indicted him for it? |
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's another article from today's New York Times that might answer some of your questions, with excerpts below:
Charges Shed Little Light on Underlying Questions
"Mr. Fitzgerald had initially been expected to seek charges under a narrow statute that makes it illegal for a government official to knowingly disclose the identity of a confidential government agent. Another possibility that had been the subject of some speculation was that he might seek to apply a broader provision that makes it a crime to disclose classified information.
"Mr. Fitzgerald would not say on Friday whether he believed that Mr. Libby had in fact violated either law. He said that question had been impossible to answer, because Mr. Libby's misleading answers to investigators and the grand jury had obscured what actually took place. He likened his problem to that of a baseball umpire who was unable to make a call because of sand thrown in his eyes.
"The prosecutor argued that the charges he brought against Mr. Libby, for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice, were just as serious as those he might have brought against Mr. Libby for unauthorized disclosure. He called them "a serious breach of the public trust," and he said the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's status had been a setback to the Central Intelligence Agency and its employees, at minimum as a deterrent to the recruiting of new officers."
I might add that he's not being accused of lying solely because his notes disagree with his testimony. If you read the indictment you'll see that his sworn testimony and statements he gave to investigators contradict the testimony of at least three reporters and several administration officials.
Message edited by author 2005-10-29 19:51:40. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 08:35:07 PM · #16 |
But, in order to prove he is lying about what he did, don't you have to prove he did something? I can't recall word for word conversations I had last week, last month, last year. In order to prove he lied with intent to deceive, you have to prove that he did something wrong to lie about. Don't you?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 10:55:12 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by louddog:
In order to prove he lied with intent to deceive, you have to prove that he did something wrong to lie about. Don't you? |
He did do "something wrong" -- he attempted to impede the prosecution from uncovering the truth. Whether he lied to cover up his own actions, or to protect the actions of another from legal scrutiny, is entirely irrelevant -- he obviously "obstructed justice" which is the crime of which he's accused. It's just as illegal to cover up exculpatory as incriminating evidence -- to obstruct justice is to block the search for truth, regardless of whether the person so accused is guilty of the underlying crime or not.
For example, if you witnessed someone tossing a gun in a dumpster and running off, you'd be guilty of obstruction of justice if you lied to the police when they asked if you knew where the weapon was.
Worse, if they could prove that you knew (or should have known) that a crime had actually been committed with it, you could be charged as an "accessory after-the-fact" and face the same charges as the perpetrator, even if you have nothing to do with the original crime. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 10:57:14 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Because it was brought up in another in which false and unbacked statements were made about it, I thought it could and should use its own thread. |
Just joining this fray with the usual type of question - to wit: What false and unbacked statements were made about the Grand Jury CIA Investigation in another thread?
While you are certainly entitled to make the allegation, you should also be prepared to support that allegation. Or, if we were a Grand Jury, would YOU be open to indictment for the very things that Mr. Libby was indicted for ( i.e. making false statements, and/or perjury )?
Apparently, he did not have notes that supported his statements. Do you? |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:08:29 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by louddog:
But, in order to prove he is lying about what he did, don't you have to prove he did something? I can't recall word for word conversations I had last week, last month, last year. In order to prove he lied with intent to deceive, you have to prove that he did something wrong to lie about. Don't you? |
Yeah, that's what's so confusing. I think you can prove that an individual lied about whatever it is he did, regardless of whether you can prove that the thing he did was illegal or not. The prosecutor apparently thinks he can't prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby violated the particular law in question. My understanding is that there are many elements to the crime one has to prove beyond just the fact that Libby disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA agent. So one can prove perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice without having to prove that there was a crime committed in the first instance, although this begs the question why did Libby lie if he didn't believe he was guilty of some wrongdoing? He lied to cover up something, no?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:16:04 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by louddog:
In order to prove he lied with intent to deceive, you have to prove that he did something wrong to lie about. Don't you? |
He did do "something wrong" -- he attempted to impede the prosecution from uncovering the truth. Whether he lied to cover up his own actions, or to protect the actions of another from legal scrutiny, is entirely irrelevant -- he obviously "obstructed justice" which is the crime of which he's accused. It's just as illegal to cover up exculpatory as incriminating evidence -- to obstruct justice is to block the search for truth, regardless of whether the person so accused is guilty of the underlying crime or not.
For example, if you witnessed someone tossing a gun in a dumpster and running off, you'd be guilty of obstruction of justice if you lied to the police when they asked if you knew where the weapon was.
Worse, if they could prove that you knew (or should have known) that a crime had actually been committed with it, you could be charged as an "accessory after-the-fact" and face the same charges as the perpetrator, even if you have nothing to do with the original crime. |
Good points, GeneralE, although in this case it's clear that Libby did disclose the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters, and then lied to cover up that fact. It's also possible that he's protecting other people from prosecution, like his boss and possibly others. We may never know the whole truth. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:20:40 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Because it was brought up in another in which false and unbacked statements were made about it, I thought it could and should use its own thread. |
Just joining this fray with the usual type of question - to wit: What false and unbacked statements were made about the Grand Jury CIA Investigation in another thread?
While you are certainly entitled to make the allegation, you should also be prepared to support that allegation. Or, if we were a Grand Jury, would YOU be open to indictment for the very things that Mr. Libby was indicted for ( i.e. making false statements, and/or perjury )?
Apparently, he did not have notes that supported his statements. Do you? |
MadMordegon addresses your question in his first post in this thread.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:32:37 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Politically misdoing and corruption is as surprising as super models using drugs. Everybody goes into a tizzy when someone gets caught, but fails to realize that most do it. |
Again, this shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of this case. Trying to lump this together with less serious corruption. Though of course its all bad, this one is over 100 years bad.
This case is about corruption that put in jeopardy the national security of the United States and took it to war. |
Is this the same type of corruption as was the "trading" of nuclear secrets to China? |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:50:33 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by louddog:
But, in order to prove he is lying about what he did, don't you have to prove he did something? I can't recall word for word conversations I had last week, last month, last year. In order to prove he lied with intent to deceive, you have to prove that he did something wrong to lie about. Don't you? |
-----------------------------------------------
I just listened to Fitzgerald's press conference again, and I think he explains this reasonably well when he says the prosecutor doesn't set out to investigate whether a statute has been violated. He sets out to gather information and determine whether a crime has been committed. If money is missing from a bank, you don't investigate only wire fraud. If you find embezzlement, you charge embezzlement. In this case, he found perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice, so that's what he charged.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2005 12:31:37 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Politically misdoing and corruption is as surprising as super models using drugs. Everybody goes into a tizzy when someone gets caught, but fails to realize that most do it. |
Again, this shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of this case. Trying to lump this together with less serious corruption. Though of course its all bad, this one is over 100 years bad.
This case is about corruption that put in jeopardy the national security of the United States and took it to war. |
So lying to a grand jury took this country to war? |
Well, there is an old saying. You can fool some people all the time. You can fool all the people some of the time. You cannot fool all the people all the time.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2005 08:25:41 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Is this the same type of corruption as was the "trading" of nuclear secrets to China? |
Attempting to justify the current corruption situation by referring to past wrong doings.
This will get us nowhere.
|
|
