# "Scooter" Libby trial predictions



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Opening salvos in the Libby case were today

Prosecution: https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/
Defense:

I'm sort of dismayed by Fitzgerald.

Oh, and a poll ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

He will be found guilty.

Not to side track the thread, but is Sandy Berger up for trial?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> He will be found guilty.
> 
> Not to side track the thread, but is Sandy Berger up for trial?


I agree. Looks like we are the only two so far.

Sandy Berger? LOL


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I think he'll be found guilty of obstructing this ridiculous, frivolous investigation.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My strongest memory sitting off Vietnam during the final fall of Saigon , aside from countless slicks flying one way trips out was the radio traffic. We listened to countless calls from people trying to raise their american counterparts for the promised evacuation of their families if the unimaginable happened. When you 'out' a CIA operative, it's not some tabloid affair for Rosie O'Donnell to champion. Your putting a small caliber bullet in all their direct and even innocent contacts heads- if lucky.Frivolous? I want the people who did this in prison as traitors.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Sandy Burglar was convicted in '05 and sentenced last December. However, one of the Congressional committees said there may be more charges.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> ...When you 'out' a CIA operative... Your putting a small caliber bullet in all their direct and even innocent contacts heads- if lucky.Frivolous? I want the people who did this in prison as traitors.


 I believe that Ms Plame is still alive and well. I don't think she was an 'operative', much less undercover, nor subjected to any particular danger due to her supposed 'outing'.

Yes, frivolous.

Now, as for Joe, there was a true 'operative', if there ever was one. Ms Plame could be classified as his "controller", possibly.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Privy to all the true details of her career are we? Intelligence is largely the collection of massive amounts of data and connecting a lot of dots, once you see those dots. This frivolous dot's exposure may indeed draw a line, and a bullet in the real world. This is not a discussion of James Bond and his lapels.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I'm amazed at the information on this...even Hannity was spouting untruths today...

The CIA has to my knowledge confirmed she was covert under their rules.

There's nothing that indicates Wilson was sent on a "junket" by his wife.

This alone justifies the investigation.

Libby is charged with lying about this some six times. 

It seems clear given the investigative journalisim that the VP office was outraged with the Wilson op-ed and was seeking to smother his critique.

I think Libby is screwed.

-spence


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

Libby was Nifong-ed


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> but is Sandy Berger up for trial?


Sandy Burglar?

Yes, why does he get a "get out of jail free card"?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Kav said:


> My strongest memory sitting off Vietnam during the final fall of Saigon , aside from countless slicks flying one way trips out was the radio traffic. We listened to countless calls from people trying to raise their american counterparts for the promised evacuation of their families if the unimaginable happened. When you 'out' a CIA operative, it's not some tabloid affair for Rosie O'Donnell to champion. Your putting a small caliber bullet in all their direct and even innocent contacts heads- if lucky.Frivolous? I want the people who did this in prison as traitors.


Kav: In your rather unique and graphically detailed writing style, you have appropriately defined the issues, so much better than have others. I am in complete agreement with your conclusions. Thank you!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> Privy to all the true details of her career are we? Intelligence is largely the collection of massive amounts of data and connecting a lot of dots, once you see those dots. This frivolous dot's exposure may indeed draw a line, and a bullet in the real world. This is not a discussion of James Bond and his lapels.


Ok, maybe you are privy to the true details of her career.

The reason the trial, indeed, the investigation, is frivolous is detailed in the PBS/Jim Lehrer interview at

.

The actual "leaker" was known to the Justice Dept well before Fitzgerald was appointed, and by Fitzgerald himself before he began his investigation. And no charges have been brought against Armitage, nor does anybody expect there to be.

And three years later, here we are. Ridiculous.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Does anyone else here share my tendency to look askance at mature men in positions of responsibility who go by little-boy nicknames like "Scooter"?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

JLibourel said:


> Does anyone else here share my tendency to look askance at mature men in positions of responsibility who go by little-boy nicknames like "Scooter"?


Yeah-- I thought they might indict him for that.

Interesting article on the man at www.salon.com, BTW. One of his prep-school classmates wondering how a congenitally power-hungry little suckup could have found himself in this mess.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I think the case ought to be thrown out of court. I really can't imagine a self respecting judge having anything to do with it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Privy no, public yes. Everyone of us on this forum with military, state or federal service and employment has taken an OATH. Anyone having taken such an oath who violates said oath is guilty of high crimes and treason. There is no EZ shortform oath, a disclaimer in fine print advising the taker may have additional rights or exclusions in California, Guam or Duluth Minnesota, no use by___ expiration date or modifying codicils and conditions because you live in certain nieghborhoods with a view of the Potomac.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav,

I'm not sure what your post means, but then my limited capabilities allow me only to make (and understand) posts of a simple and straightforward manner.

(Stemming from my own shortcomings, no doubt), I'm not sure what the prior or current (government) employement status of the good folks of this forum has to do with the the issues of this thread (or the prosecution of Libby). May I presume the relevance is the same for those who are not members of this forum?

Are you saying that Armitage should be prosecuted? If so I would not disagree, although I doubt Fitzgerald is cutting him any slack just because he is fond of him.

By the way, what did you make of the PBS article I linked?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

After reading this thread I finally understand the appeal of the Wilsons to liberals. The vague and undisclosed status of Ms. Plame makes this the perfect hypothetical playground for those that live by the weight of the accusation not the weight of the evidence. It's like a free license to claim anything you want and never be held accountable. What I don't get is you seem to do that anyway, do you have some secret fear of being "found out"? Trust us, you already are. 

What is really a shame are the sincere people that get dragged into this thinking Libby outed CIA operatives and/or violated some oath. I know many ex-military people that are really, really mad. I would be right there with them calling for a hanging, but that is based on a big IF ... IF the accusations had been true I would have been mad too, but they weren't and we know that the prosecutor knew it all along, but implied there was and let people think there was for well beyond any reasonable measure. Where is the anger over that? Is that really any less respectful of the oaths and sacrifices made by military and intelligence personnel? I sure don't think so. Even so, Fitzgerald doesn't even claim Libby outed Ms. Plame; and prosecutors take an oath too by the way. I fully expect Fitzgerald to have some accounting to make before St. Peter over his stewardship of justice.

Are conservatives and moderates really as confused now as liberals about the difference between what did happen and what we imagine might have happened - between accusations/implications and evidence/FACTS? God help us if that's true.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Simple and straightforward, people in government take oaths. We haven't excused 18 y/o marines who must make split second decisions in combat from courtmartial. People in government under far less duress just can't say OOPS! But then If your mind is on the perks of your new job such quaint customs don't really count or mean anything. Not in Washington where people decide to send those 18 y/o marines into combat. That would be- frivolous.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Simple and straightforward, people in government take oaths. We haven't excused 18 y/o marines who must make split second decisions in combat from courtmartial. People in government under far less duress just can't say OOPS! But then If your mind is on the perks of your new job such quaint customs don't really count or mean anything. Not in Washington where people decide to send those 18 y/o marines into combat. That would be- frivolous.


FWIW, I just saw something in a report tonight that quoted the actual memo where it pondered Mr. Wilson's involvement and described Mr. Wilson's wife as a WMD managerial type at CIA. That's not even an OOPS! moment. Remeber the whole point of this was to figure out why Joe Wilson was lying and for whom and why. Let's not get so self-righteous that we make the Wilson's out to be saints when they are clearly liars that got rich off their lie.

I respect everyone's military service, but no one gets a pass on the FACTS because they can act outraged. If someone tried to railroad an 18 yr old Marine, I think everyone would be angry. Just because it's Washington and it's the political enemy it's not ok to invent a crime. The truth is that a large percentage of people think Libby is on trial for outing a CIA operative and that is just as big a crime as if it had happened.

I think he's going to be found guilty too. I think it will like the OJ verdict. The jury will vote 'anti Bush administration' or 'anti Iraq war' and find him guilty to "send a message" instead of letting him go and letting THEM get away with IT. I'll be shocked if he walks.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav, 

I don't recall saying anyone should be allowed to violate their oath - not the 18 yr old marine, not the CIA operative, not the President, not the junior senator from NY, not the senior or even the junior senator from MA, not the Vice-President (forgive me if I don't name everyone, but I do recognize that they all are charged with upholding their oath).

Do you not wish to make any comment on the article I linked. I find it compelling. Do you find it irrelevant? Or maybe contrary to your purposes of arguing that the investigation was in good faith?

Again, I ask you, should Armitage, the self-proclaimed leaker, be prosecuted?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The case should be thrown out of court until after the dirty prosecutor has been convicted and place in prison for a long time.

If not, then the judge should be removed from his duties permanently, or also put on trial and convicted. I'm tire of judges getting a free pass.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Yes, I read the article. Yes Armitage should face some consequences, as should everyone who participated in whatever fashion. Look, we have red lights at intersections. It doesn't matter if you run one through design, error or lapse of judgement. Nor does it matter if you get through without injuring anyone or causing property damage, or just splashed gutterwater on a pedestrian and she lost a sack of groceries. You ran a red light. Next time it could very well be a CIA employee with notched lapels and Walther PPK and all his Bond Babes winding up spraypainted gold.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Thanks for the answers. You and I are, in fact, very close in our opinions on the meat of some of the real issues, I believe. As a former military man who has served overseas, I appreciate the need for security of all types (including information). I am something of a stickler for following the law.

And I almost never run red lights. The one time I got a ticket for that I guarantee you the light was yellow when I went through. The officer, I think, either needed to make another cop to satisfy the dept quota, or wanted to throw his weight around a bit. Either way, he had the badge and did his thing. When I tried to explain it to my mother and father, they were rather skeptical of my story, to say the least. They grounded me for a week because they felt like they had to, I think .


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Yes, I read the article. Yes Armitage should face some consequences


What consequences should he face? He broke no laws. Didn't he already resign?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

interesting article in the WP


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> interesting article in the WP


The entire base of the piece is in error...According to the CIA Plame was covert...

And what's amazing (well, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised) is that the investigation has turned up evidence to support the claims that the Admin knowingly used the Niger intel to pump up the war...

-spence


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

If she says so. My head started pounding and I was feeling sorry for the poor slob who had to edit it -- remember, we are seeing the polished version. I just found it really difficult to follow.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> The entire base of the piece is in error...According to the CIA Plame was covert...
> 
> And what's amazing (well, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised) is that the investigation has turned up evidence to support the claims that the Admin knowingly used the Niger intel to pump up the war...
> 
> -spence


Not according to the law. Yes, her identity which was *divulged by the CIA* "Valerie Plame" was listed as secret. Covert agents' identities are listed as secret. However, having your name on that list doesn't mean that someone is covert or has been covert within five years. She had not been covert in over 7 years. Was she covert? no. Had she been covert? yes. Did the WH tell anyone she was a covert operative? no. What Armitage and co. said was Wilson's wife was an analyst on WMD. Does that violate the law? no.

However, I do think if a there would be a violation it would be the CIA leaking of her name and announcing her as a covert agent. Wouldn't you?

I disagree with your second point as well. Wilson lied in his article. He contradicted his own report given to the CIA. Iraq did *seek* yellow cake as he said in his own report and as was found by the 9/11 commission. When questioned about his article Wilson said, "I must have mis-spoke." I'm not sure how you mis-speak your main point in a published article


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Not according to the law. Yes, her identity which was *divulged by the CIA* "Valerie Plame" was listed as secret. Covert agents' identities are listed as secret. However, having your name on that list doesn't mean that someone is covert or has been covert within five years. She had not been covert in over 7 years. Was she covert? no. Had she been covert? yes.


According to the case, Plame had done covert work overseas in the past five years and the CIA was trying to conceal her identity.


> I disagree with your second point as well. Wilson lied in his article.


Is this about Wilson?

I thought it was about Libby misleading the prosecution about his story...and perhaps additionally about a Whitehouse that's lied about it as well.

Given the evidence so far, it would seem that the words of Bush and the Press Sec. don't seem to jibe with the case.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Iraq did *seek* yellow cake as he said in his own report and as was found by the 9/11 commission.


This also is not true...

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Is this about Wilson?
> 
> I thought it was about Libby misleading the prosecution about his story...and perhaps additionally about a Whitehouse that's lied about it as well.
> 
> ...


You're the one who brought up the niger intel and went outside the scope of Libby. I'm sorry if you don't like where it landed you


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> This also is not true...
> 
> -spence


yes, it is. Wilson confirmed it himself. Oh wait, you don't believe him?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> yes, it is. Wilson confirmed it himself. Oh wait, you don't believe him?


By saying what exactly?

Then get back to Libby which is what the TRIAL is all about 

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> By saying what exactly?


You are confused about who doubted the intelligence. It was not Wilson. It was others.

Wilson was sent to confirm the British intel that the Iraqis sought yellow cake. Wilson came back and reported that he found evidence they sought yellow cake to the CIA. It was the CIA that was doubtful of his claim because Iraq already had yellow cake. So, the CIA didn't understand the claim that's why they sent Wilson to confirm it.



> Senate Intelligence Committee : Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."


What the yap is on Cheney or Rice or whoever cherry-picked is that they ignored the CIA's doubts about Wilson's report and included that Iraq was seeking yellow cake as danger point when they new Iraq already had it and Niger woudln't sell it.

Wilson then wrote his article flip-flopping and saying that Iraq did not seek yellow cake and so Wilson lied. When questioned Wilson said he "mis-spoke" when he said that in his article. Wilson has never denied that Iraq sought yellow cake from Niger, except in his article which he disavowed.

It was later found out (about a month) that the document Wilson saw was forged. Confirmng the doubters at CIA, but Wilson did not know that. Yes, there was a huge failure of intelligence (Wilson's) and of the ignoring of the doubting voices while taking the supporting voices.

However, on Cheney vs. Wilson (the Libby matter) Wilson was both wrong and lied. Cheney and thus Libby (and those at the State Dept. that worked on writing the speech lines) were well within their rights as I see it to defend that and call Wilson on it. As a side bar Novak and Woodward asked Armitage about it because "the 16 lines" came from State and how Wilson was involved if his story wasn't true. It was Armitage who said "his wife is an analyst working on WMD" to explain how he got involved, not to out a covert operative. As has been reported either Libby was told first by that lady that worked for him and Cheney and/or read it first in a report and additionally heard it and or discussed it several times after that with reporters and various people to answer the question that was being put to them, Why did you send Wilson?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Spence said:


> By saying what exactly?
> 
> Then get back to Libby which is what the TRIAL is all about
> 
> -spence


The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't discuss Wilson or Iraqi attempts to procure "yellowcake." Ksinc must be thinking of the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence. In Wilson's July 6, 2003 piece, he states that : 


> 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.



This is more or less confirmed by the relevant testimony before the Senate Committee: on February 19, 2002, Wilson was briefed by intelligence officers from the CIA and the State Department regarding the details of a classified report purporting to document an agreement by Niger to sell 500 tons of lightly processed uranium ore to Iraq. Wilson flew to Niger on February 26, looked into the matter, and returned to the US on March 5. He was debriefed by intelligence agents that day. The agents wrote up report of the debriefing which indicated the Wilson found no evidence of sale of uranium ore to Iraq. Wilson was told by former Prime Minister Mayaki that he had been approached by an Iraqi business delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations - which Mayaki took to mean purchase of yellowcake ore. Nothing came of this; however, Niger's former Minister of Energy and Mines told Wilson that in 1998 he had been approached by an Iranian delegation seeking to purchase 400 tons of yellowcake. Again, nothing came of this. The consensus among those in the know was that even if Niger had wanted to sell either of these delegations uranium ore, it couldn't do so because the French controlled all aspects of Niger's uranium industry. The upshot was that Wilson found no evidence to support the report that Niger and Iraq had entered into an agreement to sell 500 tons of yellowcake. Nothing in his testimony before the Committee suggests otherwise.

Had Wilson merely left it at that, he would be home free. However, he seems to have overreached at some point. He told the Senate committee that he was the source of June 12, 2003 WaPo article in which he is quoted anonymously as contending that the "documents" supporting the report of the yellowcake deal were forged because the names and dates contained in them were wrong, and that he said so when he was debriefed on March 5, 2002. However, the CIA informed the committee that there were no "documents" to show Wilson at the time of his trip to Niger, and that Wilson had not been shown the classified reports discussing the alleged deal. When asked about this by the senate committee, Wilson backpedaled and said he may have mis-spoke to the WaPo reporter when he was quoted as saying that the "documents" were forged. (In his July 6 piece in The Times, Wilson hedges and states that "news accounts" indicated that the documents were forged - which they were.) This blunder does not help Wilson's credibility, but it does not rebut his essential point: he found no evidence of a deal to sell Iraq 500 tons of yellowcake, and he said so at the time of his mission. He did not say he "mis-spoke" about this when questioned by the Senate Committee. He "mis-spoke" when he tried to inflate his involvement in this matter by saying that he had pointed out specific problems with the "documents" at the time of his mission to Niger.

Wilson also omitted any mention of the 1999 Iraqi delegation in his July 6, 2003 NYT piece. This was disingenuous, at best, because in the course of the article he himself refers to both an uranium "deal," which didn't exist, and "attempts" to cut a deal, which the abortive 1999 "business delegation" meeting with Prime Minister Mayagi undoubtedly was - 75 percent of Niger's commercial activity is the mining and sale of uranium ore so any expansion of "commercial relations" had to include sales of yellowcake. By including "attempts"in his piece, Wilson was obligated to disclose his knowledge of the 1999 delegation, if only to show how meager and unsuccessful those "attempts" were.

This whole affair does no one any credit. In his Times article Wilson says that he learned nothing "secret or earth-shattering" in his trip to Niger; and his intelligence contacts, while rating his information "good," agreed. Everyone familiar with the matter concluded that there was no "deal" to sell Iraqi 500 tons of yellowcake, that no such deal could made, and that any Iraqi attempts to enter into such a deal with Niger would be unsuccessful. The Administration knew this, and it knew that no war could be launched on the weak grounds of a brief and unsuccessful meeting between the Prime Minister of Niger and an Iraqi "business delegation." So the forged dossier entered the picture, and other hysterical lies had to be told. When Wilson saw where these led, he went public with what he knew and massaged it a bit. This enraged the warmongers, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Libby will be convicted. Not that it matters much.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> According to the case, Plame had done covert work overseas in the past five years and the CIA was trying to conceal her identity.
> -spence


Show me where you saw that in the "the case"? I'd like to see that if it's true because both 9/11 and Butler say that her name simply had an (S) for 'secret' buy it meaning her identity was still classified, but that she had not been covert in over 7 years.

The CIA are the ones that released her identity and confirmed that she had been covert 7 years ago in the testimony that comes from in 9/11 and Butler. AFAIK they have never attempted to conceal her identity. They were rather quick to confirm it as a matter of fact and her covert status.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

After seeing the acquittals of manifestly guilty people (O.J. Simpson is just one example) and doing many trials myself in which I couldn't have predicted the outcome I don't get too involved in predicting the outcome of trials.

Still, it is clear that Libby is guilty, in that he lied to the grand jury, which is what he is charged with. It's hard to see how the jury can buy his failure of memory defense without ever hearing him say that he had lapses of memory and how they happened.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> After seeing the acquittals of manifestly guilty people (O.J. Simpson is just one example) and doing many trials myself in which I couldn't have predicted the outcome I don't get too involved in predicting the outcome of trials.
> 
> Still, it is clear that Libby is guilty, in that he lied to the grand jury, which is what he is charged with. It's hard to see how the jury can buy his failure of memory defense without ever hearing him say that he had lapses of memory and how they happened.


I disagree, in that I think Libby felt guilty and got confused and did not consciously commit perjury. Liars do that and politicians are certainly that or in that mode. Libby sure seems to have been involved and knew he was up against the line if not over it. I have predicted Libby will be found guilty all along; if only for an OJ type verdict in reverse. What would that be called - not Jury nullification?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Show me where you saw that in the "the case"? I'd like to see that if it's true because both 9/11 and Butler say that her name simply had an (S) for 'secret' buy it meaning her identity was still classified, but that she had not been covert in over 7 years.


I've read it reported several times...I'd have to dig up a story.

I believe the (S) you're referring to was on the Whitehouse memo that circulated around on Airforce One. That doesn't indicate secret vs covert as far as her CIA status was concerned...simply that the info in the memo was secret.

Perhaps you're confused? 

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I disagree, in that I think Libby felt guilty and got confused and did not consciously commit perjury.


Well, it would seem that the evidence does indicate the Whitehouse made a serious effort to discredit Wilson and has misled or lied to the public about it's actions in this regard. I'm not a lawyer, but if that doesn't establish motive I'm not sure what would.

While I can see Libby mis-remembering a few events, there's enough consistancy in his behavior to indicate he was well aware of what he was doing.

I love all this attention on Wilson anyway, he's a minor player at best.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Well, it would seem that the evidence does indicate the Whitehouse made a serious effort to discredit Wilson and has misled or lied to the public about it's actions in this regard. I'm not a lawyer, but if that doesn't establish motive I'm not sure what would.
> 
> While I can see Libby mis-remembering a few events, there's enough consistancy in his behavior to indicate he was well aware of what he was doing.
> 
> ...


Yes, the WH certainly had an effort to rebut Wilson, the liar. I do not disagree. However, is that a crime?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't discuss Wilson or Iraqi attempts to procure "yellowcake." Ksinc must be thinking of the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence.


Yes, that's what I quoted. I did mix the two up. Thanks!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Everyone familiar with the matter concluded that there was no "deal" to sell Iraqi 500 tons of yellowcake, that no such deal could made, and that any Iraqi attempts to enter into such a deal with Niger would be unsuccessful. The Administration knew this, and it knew that no war could be launched on the weak grounds of a brief and unsuccessful meeting between the Prime Minister of Niger and an Iraqi "business delegation." So the forged dossier entered the picture,* and other hysterical lies had to be told. When Wilson saw where these led, he went public with what he knew *and massaged it a bit. This enraged the warmongers, and the rest, as they say, is history.


I agree with you except the bolded part.

A source close to the matter says that Wilson was dispatched to Niger because Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about an intelligence report about Iraq seeking uranium and that he asked that the CIA get back to him with answers. Cheney's staff has adamantly denied and Tenet has reinforced the claim that the Vice President had anything to do with initiating the Wilson mission. They say the Vice President merely asked routine questions at an intelligence briefing and that mid-level CIA officials, on their own, chose to dispatch Wilson.

In an exclusive interview Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME: "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. *During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction. But the agency noted that the reporting lacked detail. The agency pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA).*

This was all known before Wilson went to Niger.

"massaged it a bit" nice


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, the WH certainly had an effort to rebut Wilson, the liar. I do not disagree. However, is that a crime?


Nice spin!

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Nice spin!
> 
> -spence


Thanks, SPINce!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I agree with you except the bolded part.
> 
> A source close to the matter says that Wilson was dispatched to Niger because Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about an intelligence report about Iraq seeking uranium and that he asked that the CIA get back to him with answers. Cheney's staff has adamantly denied and Tenet has reinforced the claim that the Vice President had anything to do with initiating the Wilson mission. They say the Vice President merely asked routine questions at an intelligence briefing and that mid-level CIA officials, on their own, chose to dispatch Wilson.
> 
> ...


It was well known from the IAEA that Iraq had obtained yellowcake from Niger in 1981 and 1982. It was also well known from the IAEA that, as of December 16, 1998, "there were no indications that Iraq . . . clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material." The 500 ton "deal" was total crap, and was more or less recognized as such by those who were familiar with the situation. That's why someone as inconsequential as Wilson was sent to, in the words of one intelligence officer, "chat up his friends" and report what he was told. Wilson returned with the vague story about the 1999 "business delegation" that went nowhere, and couldn't have gone anywhere. The rest of the story was complete bullshiit.



> "massaged it a bit" nice


Wilson strikes me as unusually dim, even for a former ambassador. His NYT piece was poorly written and made no distinction between the 500 ton yellowcake deal and "attempts" by Iraqi representatives obtain yellowcake. This may reflect a confused mind as much as an intent to decieve. He also appears quite vain - no surprise there - and I imagine this led him to insert himself publicly into the Niger dispute and to inflate his role. Neither of these acts appear very wise in retrospect.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> It was well known from the IAEA that Iraq had obtained yellowcake from Niger in 1981 and 1982. It was also well known from the IAEA that, as of December 16, 1998, "there were no indications that Iraq . . . clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material." The 500 ton "deal" was total crap, and was more or less recognized as such by those who were familiar with the situation. That's why someone as inconsequential as Wilson was sent to, in the words of one intelligence officer, "chat up his friends" and report what he was told. Wilson returned with the vague story about the 1999 "business delegation" that went nowhere, and couldn't have gone anywhere. The rest of the story was complete bullshiit.
> 
> Wilson strikes me as unusually dim, even for a former ambassador. His NYT piece was poorly written and made no distinction between the 500 ton yellowcake deal and "attempts" by Iraqi representatives obtain yellowcake. This may reflect a confused mind as much as an intent to decieve. He also appears quite vain - no surprise there - and I imagine this led him to insert himself publicly into the Niger dispute and to inflate his role. Neither of these acts appear very wise in retrospect.


Wow, Lushington. It's rather nice to finally be totally in agreement with you on something. Thanks and Cheers!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I disagree, in that I think Libby felt guilty and got confused and did not consciously commit perjury. Liars do that and politicians are certainly that or in that mode. Libby sure seems to have been involved and knew he was up against the line if not over it. I have predicted Libby will be found guilty all along; if only for an OJ type verdict in reverse. What would that be called - not Jury nullification?


Here's an interesting video clip that's part of a longer diavlog about Libby's memory that pretty seriously undermines the claim that Libby just has a bad memory for this stuff.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Here's an interesting video clip that's part of a longer diavlog about Libby's memory that pretty seriously undermines the claim that Libby just has a bad memory for this stuff.


Jack, After reading your post and the phrases "interesting" and "seriously undermine" I fully expected the video to be a clip of Libby. I'm rather shocked that you feel this fits either of those descriptors; two people's mutual conjecture? Clearly Libby has been prepped for testimony before and now. I'm sure whatever his inaccuracies were; they were well rehearsed and although in error or lying or whatever he appeared confident of his answers. That doesn't seem like a shocker. I'm also not sure what her opinion of his memory has to do with anything. I also think whether he generally has a good memory or a bad memory is different than what I said or what Libby's defense is or what PROVING a perjury charge is about.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Okay, I guess we aren't going to agree here. I haven't been following the trial as closely as some, but when Jackie Shire, who has been, describes a set of highly detailed recollections by Libby at trial, not necessarily about crucial facts that he would have been heavily prepped on, that correspond to details set forth in the documentary evidence, that all suggests pretty strongly to me that his claim that, when he was talking to Tim Russert about Valerie Plame, whose identity he had learned as a CIA agent three weeks earlier, he no longer remembered that same fact, is a knowingly false claim. It simply exceeds all reasonable credulity to ask us to believe that he would have forgotten that crucial piece of information.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, I guess we aren't going to agree here. I haven't been following the trial as closely as some, but when Jackie Shire, who has been, describes a set of highly detailed recollections by Libby at trial, not necessarily about crucial facts that he would have been heavily prepped on, that correspond to details set forth in the documentary evidence, that all suggests pretty strongly to me that his claim that, when he was talking to Tim Russert about Valerie Plame, whose identity he had learned as a CIA agent three weeks earlier, he no longer remembered that same fact, is a knowingly false claim. It simply exceeds all reasonable credulity to ask us to believe that he would have forgotten that crucial piece of information.


We do disagree. I'm not sure what you just stated is completely accurate. Jackie Shire has no way to know what Libby has been prepped on and what he hasn't. I actually go the other direction. I think Libby was prepped heavily and often, so thoroughly that it would strain comprehension because of the scrutiny being applied and the stakes. That much conscious manipulation over time can blur facts and make one confident in a lie.

This was never going anywhere and even if Fitzgerald does get Libby now it's not gonna prove anything. Fitzgerald should have quit while he was ahead IMHO. Libby will obviously be pardoned and no one else is going down.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Guilty ... with a Bush pardon.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Spence said:


> Given the evidence so far, it would seem that the words of Bush and the Press Sec. don't seem to jibe with the case.


 Perhaps they too have ... uhhh ... mis-spoken? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

An interesting question. Could read into this both ways.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

wow, they're really trying hard to make it look good! LOL

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070306/D8NMNRFO0.html


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I thought for sure Scooter was going down but now am starting to think the jury is almost looking for a plausible excuse to let him off.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Verdict at noon today.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Ha! Knew it!

Guilty on 4 of 5 counts. That makes it look fair.


----------



## BHM Fashion (Jun 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Ha! Knew it!
> 
> Guilty on 4 of 5 counts. That makes it look fair.


The real question is will this be treated as the end result or a step in further investigations? I think enough opinions have been proferred on Libby as fall guy to make this a very tantalizing question


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BHM Fashion said:


> The real question is will this be treated as the end result or a step in further investigations? I think enough opinions have been proferred on Libby as fall guy to make this a very tantalizing question


Its already been determined that Richard Armitage was the original leaker. The prosecutor knew this a long time ago. There's no "there" there.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Pat Fitzgerald said at his press conference that he doesn't expect to be filing any more charges.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Its already been determined that Richard Armitage was the original leaker. The prosecutor knew this a long time ago. There's no "there" there.


Armitage appears to be the earliest leaker, but according to the records it would seem as there were multiple independent leaks happening within a narrow span of time.

Did you hear Limbaugh flipping out over this today? He claimed it was an attack against "conservatism" and it was time to circle the wagons.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Spin as they might this was about Dick Cheney and the War in Iraq.

-spence


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Spence said:


> Spin as they might this was about Dick Cheney and the War in Iraq.


That's how legal decisions should be made...right.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> That's how legal decisions should be made...right.


Did I say that?

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Spin as they might this was about Dick Cheney and the War in Iraq.


It means whatever you or anyone else wants it to mean. By the way, can you explain how this was about Dick Cheney and the war?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Armitage appears to be the earliest leaker, but according to the records it would seem as there were multiple independent leaks happening within a narrow span of time.
> 
> Did you hear Limbaugh flipping out over this today? He claimed it was an attack against "conservatism" and it was time to circle the wagons.
> 
> ...


First, I would ask we all remain respectful here. No need to drag in Limbaugh and no need to pick a fight.

Second, while this might be about the war, do we have some hard proof? (I am assuming you are implying this was a _quid pro quo_) Further, how would it be about Cheney, unless you are saying it is really Cheney guilty of the crimes Libby was charged with?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Martha Stewart Redux?*

The ironic thing is, the alleged "outing" of a CIA operative has nothing to do with his guilty verdicts. He was found guilty of the following:


> obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;
> 
> making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;
> 
> ...


For myself, this makes it more about politics than right or wrong. If he had gone to jail for the alleged outing it would have had more weight for me. I am not saying one should not co-operate with investigations, it is just that when I look at things like Sandy Berger stealing classified documents in his underwear, or the "missing" FBI files on people just magically showing up on a coffee table in the Clinton Whitehouse, I shake my head. The guilty should pay but it seems that there is indeed a double standard depending on who's flunky you are.

Cheers


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> The ironic thing is, the alleged "outing" of a CIA operative has nothing to do with his guilty verdicts. He was found guilty of the following:
> 
> For myself, this makes it more about politics than right or wrong. If he had gone to jail for the alleged outing it would have had more weight for me. I am not saying one should not co-operate with investigations, it is just that when I look at things like Sandy Berger stealing classified documents in his underwear, or the "missing" FBI files on people just magically showing up on a coffee table in the Clinton Whitehouse, I shake my head. The guilty should pay but it seems that there is indeed a double standard depending on who's flunky you are.
> 
> Cheers


If there's one thing we know about perjury, it'll get a fellow in some hot water. Some folks take that stuff pretty seriously:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This ought to be enough to nullify the verdict IMHO



Libby never stood a chance. The perception remains he was tried for the leak by Armitage. This is just OJ Simpson in reverse.

I heard a CNN info-babe say "Libby was found guility of Obstruction, Perjury, and Lying to the FBI in the leaking the name of a CIA agent."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

So what's the theory for setting aside the conviction? The fact that even though he was guilty there were two other guys who were worse? The juror didn't claim that he didn't lie and do the other crimes he was charged with, just that he wasn't the big fish, or was being offered up to protect someone bigger.

I hear the Mafia takes care of you if you keep your mouth shut and do your time; we'll see if Rove and Cheney do the same for Libby.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> So what's the theory for setting aside the conviction? The fact that even though he was guilty there were two other guys who were worse? The juror didn't claim that he didn't lie and do the other crimes he was charged with, just that he wasn't the big fish, or was being offered up to protect someone bigger.
> 
> I hear the Mafia takes care of you if you keep your mouth shut and do your time; we'll see if Rove and Cheney do the same for Libby.


I think Spence's statement provides insight "Spin as they might this was about Dick Cheney and the War in Iraq."

The jurors clearly knew way too much about the underlying leak to be fair. Otherwise why would they make the comment about "Where is Rove? Where is Cheney?"

This was clearly more about the leak than about Libby's actions before the grandjury. No way he got a fair trial, by fair jurors IMHO.

Another telling thing IMHO is the news immediately announced they were having Joe Wilson on at 8pm. What exactly does Joe Wilson have to do with the charges against Libby?

I think the jurors were biased by news coverage, etc. blending the charges with the leak. Just my opinion, but the comments just betray the bias IMHO. If I was the Judge I would toss it out.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDk4ZWM0N2RiZWZkZjE4NzFmMWEyYzM4ODYzMTQ3Mzc=


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think Spence's statement provides insight "Spin as they might this was about Dick Cheney and the War in Iraq."
> 
> The jurors clearly knew way too much about the underlying leak to be fair. Otherwise why would they make the comment about "Where is Rove? Where is Cheney?"


Didn't the defense try to make the case about Rove and Cheney? Weren't there even promises in the opening that the jury was going to hear from the big fish?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> This was clearly more about the leak than about Libby's actions before the grandjury. No way he got a fair trial, by fair jurors IMHO.


How is this different from the Martha Stewart case? You don't have to prove there was an underlying crime if you can prove that the defendant lied about it to the feds and the grand jury. The prosecution did that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> How is this different from the Martha Stewart case? You don't have to prove there was an underlying crime if you can prove that the defendant lied about it to the feds and the grand jury. The prosecution did that.


Perhaps, but just like Martha Stewart who I repeatedly hear was convicted for "insider trading" the jury here seems confused about what they were trying Libby for exactly. This had nothing to do with the leak, Rove, Cheney, or Iraq.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

The real crime here is that a grown man is named "Scooter."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> The real crime here is that a grown man is named "Scooter."


Word.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

BertieW said:


> The real crime here is that a grown man is named "Scooter."


Calvin Trillin pointed out that the most important question about the Klaus von Bulow trial was whether he should have gotten the chair for adding the "von" to his name.

Oh, you didn't know that?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Motive.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

LIBBY JUROR: PARDON HIM
Wed Mar 07 2007 19:21:48 ET

MSNBC host Chris Matthews spoke with Libby juror Ann Redington on HARDBALL. Juror [#10] says she would support a Bush pardon for Libby.

Transcript:

Chris: You're for a pardon out of sympathy for the defendant.

Ann: Yeah, I think in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.

Chris: Which is the leaking of a CIA agents name.

Ann: Exactly.

End

Developing...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

So are the lies that Libby told more or less important than lying about blow jobs?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> So are the lies that Libby told more or less important than lying about blow jobs?


Well, someone has already said in this thread:



jackmccullough said:


> You don't have to prove there was an underlying crime if you can prove that the defendant lied about it to the feds and the grand jury. The prosecution did that.


So since Bill is still a hero and Libby is headed to prison, I guess there are indeed gradations when it comes to perjury. And here I was thinking lying was lying.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

MOTIVE

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> So are the lies that Libby told more or less important than lying about blow jobs?


#1 Clinton didn't lie about "blowjobs" he lied about an inappropriate relationship and sex with women subordinants; relevant to a sexual harassment law suit. Paula Jones was a state employee. Perhaps you need a refresher - the issue in the case was recoverable damages not that he did not harass her? Text of Judge's Opinion https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/03/jones.opinion/

If he met some stranger named "Monica" at the mall and took her to a hotel and got a blowjob that would not have been relevant. I think no one would care either. I know I wouldn't.

As Libby lied about either when or to whom he disclosed information related to a leak investigation, I would say they are about the same in terms of relevance/importance.

Your question however is lost on me. I'm not sure why that matters or to what you are responding to specifically. Can you use quote?

I'm also not sure what that has to do with the Jury trying Libby for the "greater crime" which their statements clearly show they did?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Motive.
> 
> -spence





Spence said:


> MOTIVE
> 
> -spence


So nice you had to say it twice, huh? LOL


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If we can move ahead, perhaps a discussion of punishment to fit the crime? I now propose all people in government positions found guilty of anything short of treason NOT spend one day in any confinement. Instead I suggest they report to Walter Reed Hospital and figure out how to get our veterans off the floors in urine soaked mattresses without sheets or blankets ( the stuff we sent to tsunami ravaged Indonesia and earthquake ravaged Pakistan.) And for that matter, every serving member of Government, except combat veterans should spend a day so employed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> If we can move ahead, perhaps a discussion of punishment to fit the crime? I now propose all people in government positions found guilty of anything short of treason NOT spend one day in any confinement. Instead I suggest they report to Walter Reed Hospital and figure out how to get our veterans off the floors in urine soaked mattresses without sheets or blankets ( the stuff we sent to tsunami ravaged Indonesia and earthquake ravaged Pakistan.) And for that matter, every serving member of Government, except combat veterans should spend a day so employed.


Well, while I think the investigation was BS, Wilson/Plame is a fraud, and the jury convicted him for the wrong reasons and it should probably be tossed or appealed; I do think he might have committed perjury.

If he had been convicted solely for leaking during political hardball and rebutting lies, I could see a pardon since he was doing what Cheney told him to do and probably didn't understand the circumstances/consequences. The whole political thing is totally out of hand anyway.

All that said; I do not believe he should be pardoned for perjury. I've seen enough casual comments by jurors to believe they were not able to make an unbiased judgement. So, I have issues with the verdict, but in principle perjury should not ever be pardoned.

I do have an issue with the multiple counts, but charge him perjury, convict him, give him 10 years. Then if in the scheme of violent criminals, etc. he gets a partially suspended sentence, parole or something fine, but that's a separate issue IMHO.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So nice you had to say it twice, huh? LOL


Not much but talking points in that opinion.

Motive is important here, without it...there is no guilty charge.

And Joe Wilson having a big ego doesn't really invalidate the whole mess!

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Motive is important here, *without it...there is no guilty charge.*


So if he was simply a pathological liar and did this to the grand jury, he would be innocent?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Not much but talking points in that opinion.
> 
> Motive is important here, without it...there is no guilty charge.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree. However, a huge part of the motive issue comes down to whether Wilson was telling the truth and they were ruthlessly trying to discredit him, or whether Wilson was lying and they were aggresively defending themselves.

Talking Points? Sheesh, Wilson lied about everything. That's not a talking point. It's a fact.

How about Slate instead of the WP?

Plame's Lame Game
What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal.
https://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

Wowie Zahawie
Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
https://www.slate.com/id/2139609/


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> How about Slate instead of the WP?


Hitchens???

HAHAHHHAHAHA

Come on, his partisan angle is full of many holes. I don't have the time to respond now...but I'll be happy to this weekend.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Hitchens???
> 
> HAHAHHHAHAHA
> 
> ...


Well, until Katie Couric finally gets something published I don't know who would make you happy!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Leave it to Hitchens to generate more copy out of this tired tale. Still, I reckon that Hitch has about two more years of grace in my eyes for his crack, twenty odd years ago during Iran-Contra, that one could always tell when Reagan was lying because his lips were moving. That should last him 'til 2010 or so; after that, he's beyond the pale.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Leave it to Hitchens to generate more copy out of this tired tale. Still, I reckon that Hitch has about two more years of grace in my eyes for his crack, twenty odd years ago during Iran-Contra, that one could always tell when Reagan was lying because his lips were moving. That should last him 'til 2010 or so; after that, he's beyond the pale.


Uh, Lushington, the dates on those articles are 2004 and 2006.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Uh, Lushington, the dates on those articles are 2004 and 2006.


So they are. Now let this be a lesson to all: one should not post after fourteen hours of work and three bottles of Optimator. One should sleep, particularly after one has reached my state of dull decrepitude. Goodnight.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> So they are. Now let this be a lesson to all: one should not post after fourteen hours of work and three bottles of Optimator. One should sleep, particularly after one has reached my state of dull decrepitude. Goodnight.


I figured *something* must be wrong with you. You're always the A-player on the opposing squad and, I must say, often very convincing.  Goodnight!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, I agree. However, a huge part of the motive issue comes down to whether Wilson was telling the truth and they were ruthlessly trying to discredit him, or whether Wilson was lying and they were aggresively defending themselves.


I completely disagree.

Many things were made clear from the evidence in the trial.

1. Rove, Libby and Cheney lied or misled Scott McClellen as to their participation in the matter...who then misled the press.

2. Bush verbally authorized to only Cheney and Libby selected (i.e. cherry picked) parts of the NIE to be declassified (i.e. leaked) in an unprecedented move to counter Wilson's claims...well after the CIA had repeatedly warned the Admin the claims were unfounded. Oh, didn't Bush say they don't leak?

These leaks were targeted at the mainstream media to plant jaded reports that could be cited by Admin officials to bolster the case for war.

3. Some of Libby's lies are on the record before he or anyone was aware if any laws had potentially been broken, and I believe before even Fitzgerald was assigned to the case. I'd also note that there is credible reporting to suggest Plame was indeed NOC at the time of the outing, contrary to every GOP talking points memo you've ever read. The simple fact is that we don't know for sure, because the CIA can't legally comment! Regardless we do know her employment was secret and after an internal CIA investigation is was determined that an investigation was justified. The notion that because nobody was charged with the initial crime there should be a pardon is silly.

While I'd agree that Wilson's story hasn't always been 100%, the notion that he's a pathalogical liar simply isn't supported by the facts as you contend...but more to the point...this is a moot issue anyway.

Libby had plenty of motive to lie simply to cover up the behavior of the VP's office in marketing the war, regardless of Joe Wilson's credibility.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Some interesting comments at the end of this blog-article.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0307/Lights_Out_on_Plame.html


----------

