Comments on: Some Thoughts On The Libby Verdict

Bob Schieffer Wonders If The Verdict Was Worth The Trial In The CIA Lead Investigation

[clemenhagen1]

Attention Cat: Great call on the Armitage as pawn ploy. Reports of his reaction described him as being genuinely upon finding out he had unwittingly revealed an agents status. No such conscience displayed by the others. Another interesting detail: the exposure of the front-company Brewster-Jennings. Robert Novak exposed Brewster-Jennings, an a front that operated under the pretense of being an energy consulting firm when in fact they investigated issues related to weapons proliferation. With these facts not in dispute, the question becomes obvious: why would the administration knowingly and deliberately expose the identity of a covert CIA operation?

I can think of no other reason than to fire a shot-across-the-bow to the intelligence community? Can you come up with a more rational explanation than that? The administration had woven a web of lies, fabrications, and deceits to sell their war of choice. When Wilson publicly challenged the administration on one piece of their fiction they went on the offensive. This outting of Brewster-Jennings sent a clear message to the intelligence community: sound off about the truth and we will stop at nothing, including targeting your family, to destroy you. Anyone got a better interpretation than that? What possible other motive did they have to expose Brewster-Jennings?

[samthetvcat]

Oh, so anyway I guess the follow-up point I wanted to make was just that it is totally possible that Cheney and his henchmen dispatched Armitage to let it out that Plame worked for the CIA without first telling him of Plame's covert status so that they'd all have maximum insulation from being charged - like this way Armitage doesn't 'knowingly' divulge Plame's covert status, and then Cheney's little chimps could then go around all over town spreading the message. Cheney may be the anti-Christ, but he's very cunning and weasily. Circumstantial evidence of a guilty conscience are Ari Fleisher initiating contact with Fitzgerald and making a deal, and Libby's lying to investigators and the Grand Jury. Armitage may not have known Plame was covert, but my gut says those two did. And if those two chimps knew it then Cheney the anti-Christ probably knew it too. And if Armitage DIDN'T know it as an insider, then that seems to perhaps point to a conspiracy to out a covert agent.

[samthetvcat]

(ooops - the part in brackets below should have quotation marks around it! :) )

[samthetvcat]

RE: mechadavef
Do you have case law to substantiate your claim that a VP can't be delegated declassification authority by the (cough cough) President as Commander in Chief? I was just conceding that point for the sake of simplicity because I don't see the outcome as hinging on that point (like it isn't a point that could be successfully used to impeach him imo). Apparently you disagree? I look forward to your arguments...

RE: opfor311
It says on Wikipedia that according to a colleague in the CIA Plame did go overseas within the 5 years before her outing (she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed...) That's why the CIA is so pissed about her cover being blown...

[clemenhagen1]

"Atricle III of the Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Technically, none of this qualifies as treason"

So revealing the names of CIA operatives and CIA front-operations investigating terrorist groups and enemy regimes does not "give them aid and comfort?" What would give them aid and comfort? Brewster-Jennings and Plame were actively involved in the intelligence aspect of this war. Contrary to Bush's approach of invade and occupy, this war can best be fought via intelligence gathering and negotiation with regional powers. The Bush administration "sold-out" our operatives in the field out of petty political spite. This not only put the operatives lives at risk but destroyed any ability to gather further intelligence against our state enemies. Why would a foreign national decide to cooperate and provide information to our intelligence community? The Bush administration proved they would sell-out anyone they desired, regardless of the human cost? What more aid and comfort to the enemy do you want? You continue to try to parse definitions of what is a fairly simple concept: treason. CIA officials fall into the same category as soldiers on the front-line; I can think of no more heinous crime than to sell them out in a naked act of betrayal. Libby got convicted of obstruction because he was part of a conspiracy of lies to cover up the treason.

[hines80583]

I watched a 60 minutes show about the anthrax incident. But, here's the part I don't understand. Did any of that ever happen? Was a law actually broken? If the FBI ever found any evidence, no charge was ever filed. The FBI spent millions of dollars, hauled scientists to their offices, forced them to reveal information about their colleagues, even leaked information on one to the press.

But when these investigations drag on for years, when the FBI spends millions of our tax dollars, when reporters are forced to publish dubious stories that accuse an innocent man, shouldn't we expect more for our money? Shouldn't we at least be told if a law was broken? A few people are dead, but that doesn't mean it was murder, does it? NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED.

I copied much of the above from Schieffer%u2019s article, just altering words to fit the 60 minutes program. We do know that a jury of his peers found Scooter Libby guilty of four felony counts. We also know that Valerie Wilson's identity was bandied about to reporters shamelessly by people at the highest echelons of government. We know the Prosecutor said that HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CIA WAS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. We don't know whether it was intentional or inadvertent or if there was a conspiracy to leak.

Insofar as Bob has influence over the public%u2019s perceptions, Bob has done the public a disservice by so glibly and arrogantly dismissing the Prosecutor%u2019s judgment and supplanting it with his own.

[opfor311]

clemenhagen1,

You remind me of the Queen in 'Alice in Wonderland' saying 'Verdict First! Trial Afterwards! Off with their heads!'

You can't make a law be what you want it to be. It is what the courts have interpreted it to be.

The IIPA is crafted to only apply to a narrow set of conditions. Ms. Plame and/or Brewster/Jennings do not fall under that law. There could possibly be violations of other sections of the U.S. Code (like those that Libby was convicted under), but it is clear from the fact the Fitzgerald did not get an indictment for anything else that he didn't believe that he had enough evidence to convict.

Secondly, Atricle III of the Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Technically, none of this qualifies as treason, or Fitzgerald would have sought inditemnets on those charges.

[clemenhagen1]

"Go read the U.S. Code. Brewster/Jennings is not an individual. It is a front company. Thus it does not fall under the act."

This is pretty coy, Ofer. Identify "the company" in the paper, expose anyone who had ever associated with the company to harm, and then claim that because you didn't identify any specific individual you do not qualify under the act. Do you enjoy parsing such fine hairs to defend treason? Here's the sequence of events: They reveal Plame as CIA; by exposing Plame they expose Brewster-Jennings, thus blowing the front, which immediately alerts hostile governments and terrorist organizations that anyone remotely associated with Brewster-Jennings was either a CIA operative OR an informant. A front-company, by it's very definition purports to be legitimate, in the case of Brewster-Jennings an energy consulting firm. Exposing the front reveals the identity of all who worked there, thus violating the law. You're not wrong because you have a different view from me; you're wrong because you are wrong. They exposed, knowingly and willingly, a CIA operative, thus compromising an entire CIA front operation. The CIA asked for a justice department investigation because of the obvious damage to the agency, the operatives in question, and our national security. Treason, orchestrated and perpetuated by the Office of the Vice President. Quite a sight to behold my fellow patriots.

[jabberwock11]

"I agree with you that Libby was convicted of purjury and obstruction of justice. Those charges stemmed from the statements that he made to the Grand Jury and the FBI. But the reason why he was not even charged under the Intelligence Identies Protection Act, was that Fitzgerald had no evidence that Libby or anyone else had violated it."

They are investigating a crime. If it turns out there is no crime then everyone goes home. However during the investigation you still can't lie under oath. That's a crime in itself. My guess is Libby himself probably thought the original crime had been committed or he would not have lied. Or possibly he just thought it would look bad. Either way, he lied; he was caught; he was convicted; the end. I see no reason why he should get special treatment. If the police come to your house to arrest you for murder and you bash one of them in the head with a pipe you are going to get changed with resisting arrest and probably a few other things. If it turns out later that you are proven innocent of the murder you can still be guilty of the other crimes.

[opfor311]

clemenhagen1,

Go read the U.S. Code. Brewster/Jennings is not an individual. It is a front company. Thus it does not fall under the act.

Secondly, Armitrege didn't name Brewster/Jennings. Novak was able to piece that together from unclassified sources, such as Wilson's who's who article, and statements by Ms. Plume about where she worked.

Thirdly, while Armitrege did work in the Bush admistration's State department, he was aligned with the faction that was attemping to go the diplomatic route, and did not want to go to war.

Just because I have a different point of view from yours does not mean I'm wrong.