Just listened to Fitzgerald. What a breath of fresh air. The guy explained the indictments and the process clearly and was very careful not too comment on anything beyond the scope of the indictments. He was very impressive.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/index.html Fitzgerald said he will be keeping the grand "jury open to consider other matters." But, he said, "substantial work" is done. During an afternoon news conference, Fitzgerald said, "A CIA officer's name was blown and there was a leak and we needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. Given national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts." Libby testified that he heard CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity from Russert when, in fact, he learned of Plame's identify from a CIA official, the indictment alleged. Libby also testified that he told Cooper that other reporters told him Plame's identity, which the indictment alleges was not the case.
But if no crime was committed, why was there a need to [allegedly] lie about it? At the very least, something very inappropriate, if not criminal, took place, just like Clinton's BJ. Except, that's just one man trying to cover up his sexual immorality and abuse of power over a subordinate. Clinton's act, while wrong and disgusting on many levels, pales in comparison to this administration's manipulation of intellence that lead us to war.
Talking points.... QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, the Republicans previewed some talking points in anticipation of your indictment and they said that if you didn't indict on the underlying crimes and you indicted on things exactly like you did indict -- false statements, perjury, obstruction -- these were, quote/unquote, technicalities, and that it really was over reaching and excessive. And since, when and if they make those claims, now that you have indicted, you won't respond, I want to give you an opportunity now to respond to that allegation which they may make. It seems like that's the road they're going down. FITZGERALD: And I don't know who provided those talking points. I assume... QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) FITZGERALD: I'm not asking -- OK. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) FITZGERALD: I'll be blunt. That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.
Spanked? Spanked?? I listened to Fitzgerald's press conference, and was struck by how careful and articulate he was, and how well, with the restrictions of an ongoing investigation and upcoming trial(s), he laid out why Libby was charged. Libby lied to the FBI twice regarding an issue of national security. He lied twice to the grand jury. Fitzgerald stressed how in a time when human intelligence is critical, and we are attempting to recruit people to work without chance of public praise, or anyone knowing what they are doing or the risks they might be taking, it was critical that they not have to worry about people exposing them. The very idea that they could be exposed deliberately for political reasons, or any other reason, is intolerable. I'm astonished at your cavalier attitude, basso. You pose as if you don't give a damn that a CIA agent's cover was blown. You will say that Libby is innocent until proven guilty, but he has been charged with 5 serious counts of impeding, misleading and lying to the FBI and a grand jury. Those are damning charges, and someone leaked Plame's identity. The comments you made about Wilson and the Italian forgeries are meaningless. Wilson didn't expose his wife. No one has accused the Italians of exposing Plame. Listen closely to Rush and Fox News. You don't want to miss any talking points. I listened to Rush in my car, prior to the news coming out, and he spent about 30 minutes railing about Bill Clinton, and how much worse what he did was than what Libby, and whoever else may be charged, had done. It was pathetic. If that is the best argument a chump like him can come up with, then his arguments are bankrupt before they begin. I expect to read the same nonsense here, soon enough. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I eagerly await Libby's trial, and the further developments of Fitzgerald's investigation. The truth must come out. Fitzgerald impresses me as someone doggedly pursuing the truth. Keep D&D Civil.
All I can figure is that all the Republicans are hitting the bars to forget, and all the Democrats are hitting the bars to celebrate. I thought this place would be jumpin'! Keep D&D Civil.
Clinton lying about getting consentual oral sex for himself (no crime) = impeachment Libby lying about outing a covert agent / cover-up (crime punishable by death) = spanking
I disagree that Joe Wilson lied about his results. But anyway that is immaterial to the crimes committed. So far the forgeries that came up from Italy also aren't relevant at this point. They may be later, though.
I can't believe Rush or even Basso would be cavalier about this. An undercover operative helps keeps track of WMD's and the middle east which has been a hotbed of terrorism threatening our nation. That agent is also part of a Front business called Brewster Jennings and associates. That phony company was believed to be related to the oil industry and had set up operations in Saudi Arabia. Brewster Jennings actually allowed covert CIA agents to make contacts and operate in Osama's homeland, home to the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, supporter of wahabism brand of extremist islam, etc. It doesn't get any more central than Saudi Arabia. Then someone blows Valerie Plame's cover and ruins all the contacts, and agents who also supposedly worked for Brewster Jennings and Associates, everyone over there who was leaking information to Brewster Jennings has been lost etc. That is what happened and what we lost in our fight against terrorism. Whether or not it can be proven who did it, is secondary to the fact that our war against terrorists was damaged by this leak. It is as if those who don't mind losing our connections to human intel in that part of the world share the same goals as Al Qaeda. So for Basso or Rush to pretend like it wasn't a big deal is far from supporting troops who might need intel warnings of possible attacks. This is something that concerned Americans from both parties should be up in arms about. It isn't time to pretend like lying about sex is the same as blowing not only one agents cover but that of an entire front business and every other agent who used it as cover in our effort to monitor events in the middle east.
"we needed to figure out...whether a crime was committed" --Patrick Fitzgerald, 10/28/2005, on the "outing" of Victoria Flame
the indictment, IMHO, amounts to an allegation that Libby lied about what he knew about an underlying "crime" that wasn't committed. As i said above, lying to a GJ is certainly a serious offense, and if the charges are true, Libby deserves to be, uhmm, turned over martha stewart's knee, but this hardly rises to the level of endangering national security or outing a "NOC." stupid? yes. Baffling? yes. worth 2 years of investigative time and money to provoke a crime about a crime that was never committed? not so much... ...and from what i've read, fitzgerald does seem to be da bomb, so the whole episode just leaves me massively confused. Libby was defending Administration policy against political attack, not committing a crime.
Your assumption that no crime was committed is baffling. You're quick to point out that nobody assume a crime was committed, but at this point it would be reaching to assume a crime wasn't committed. What's your defense for it now? She wasn't undercover? Libby learned her identity from the journalists? Have you been following this? All these repub defense points have been shot down. Well, he did commit a crime by allegedly lying. Many times. If you've read the indictment, it is quite specific in its details of Libby's lies. You honestly think that if no crime was committed, Libby would need to lie? He was trying to cover up the crime and got busted doing it. The coverup wouldn't be necessary unless there was wrongdoing for him to cover up. No wonder you find it baffling. In any case, the forthcoming trial and investigation will uncover more of the lies and half cooked 'evidence' used to sell the war, and spotlight the vindictive nature of the administration. Their own game of hardball just bit them in the ass, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The full quote is better: "A CIA officer's name was blown and there was a leak and we needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. Given national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts."
Nolen, using the full quote you posted shows that indeed an undercover agent's identity was blown. That is not really in question at all, and is known beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which crime was committed by the letter of the law and whether it can proven in a court of law are different stories. But there is no doubt that the cover was blown, that Brewster Jennings and Associates had to be scrapped as a result. Whether that kind of blow to the war on terror bothers you or not, doesn't really matter. We know the result of blowing Plame's cover, and we know that her cover was blown. You can selectively edit quotes on this board and in your own mind if you want to, but it doesn't change the facts.
bassso, it is no surprise that the world is baffling when you look at it with blinders on. "Holy crap, how'd that snake get in my path. It wasn't there a second ago?" Only someone who is determined not to understand, would come away from yesterday with the conclusion that no crime was committed in the leaking of Plame's identity and then confused about why Libby would lie about his actions in the matter and put himself in grave danger of going to pound me in the ass prison. As FB has already pointed out, and as was pointed out numerous times in early postings, there is a big difference between the fact of whether a crime is committed and the ability convict someone for that crime. Fitzgerald spoke to this in his press conference yesterday to explain why the charges for lying against Libby are so serious. When people lie to law enforcement officials and the grand jury it interferes with their ability to find out who committed what crimes. I know that is a difficult concept for someone who is determined not to understand it. Let me give it one more shot. Suppose someone was at the 7-ll and witnessed a robbery, but the robber is their buddy from the neighborhood and they don't want to testify against him. So they tell the police and then a grand jury that they weren't even at the 7-11 that night. But lo and behold the police have a record of their credit card being used to buy gas at the exact time that the robbery occurred. Well if the guy never changes his story, he will probably go to jail for perjury, but no one may be convicted for the larger crime of robbing the 7-11, that does'nt mean robbing the 7-11 wasn't a crime.
"Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts." "But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth." "Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took an oath and he testified." "He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly." --Patrick Fitzgerald link
i could go back through this thread and cite 50 instancess where you state unequivocably that a crime was committed. now you say plame's cover was blown, but by the letter of the law you may not be able to prove a crime was committed. fitzgerald says the same thing. are you prepared to retract your 50 earlier statements?
I say a crime was committed, and Fitzgerald may not be able to prove in a court of law who did it. That doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. As I said before, this is what happened. An undercover operative helps keeps track of WMD's and the middle east which has been a hotbed of terrorism threatening our nation. That agent is also part of a Front business called Brewster Jennings and associates. That phony company was believed to be related to the oil industry and had set up operations in Saudi Arabia. Brewster Jennings actually allowed covert CIA agents to make contacts and operate in Osama's homeland, home to the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, supporter of wahabism brand of extremist islam, etc. It doesn't get any more central than Saudi Arabia. Then someone blows Valerie Plame's cover and ruins all the contacts, and agents who also supposedly worked for Brewster Jennings and Associates, everyone over there who was leaking information to Brewster Jennings has been lost etc. That is what happened and what we lost in our fight against terrorism. Whether or not it can be proven who did it, is secondary to the fact that our war against terrorists was damaged by this leak. It is as if those who don't mind losing our connections to human intel in that part of the world share the same goals as Al Qaeda. So for Basso or Rush to pretend like it wasn't a big deal is far from supporting troops who might need intel warnings of possible attacks. This is something that concerned Americans from both parties should be up in arms about. It isn't time to pretend like lying about sex is the same as blowing not only one agents cover but that of an entire front business and every other agent who used it as cover in our effort to monitor events in the middle east. When are you going to acknowledge the seriousness of what happened?
