So Scotter Libby was found guilty by a jury of his peers for lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury:
Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.
Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s. The conviction focused renewed attention on the Bush administration’s much-criticized handling of weapons of mass destruction intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.The verdict culminated a nearly four-year investigation into how CIA official Valerie Plame’s name was leaked to reporters in 2003. The trial revealed how top members of the Bush administration were eager to discredit Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Sound the alarm, the netnuts will be on the loose for the next few days.
So Libby may do time behind bars for perjury, not that a certain former President ever did any time but hey his name ended with Clinton so hands off bud.
The thing that is kinda sad in this case is that the underlying crime they were investigating was not proven. Fitz has even said there will be no more investigation, no more charges. So after four years and millions spent all he could prove was that a assistant lied to a jury and the FBI. That’s it.
This somehow proves that the Bush administration went out of their way to out a covert CIA agent?
Not in a million years.
Plame was NOT covert and had not done a very good job herself keeping her identity secret. Fitz knew this and that is one reason why Libby is it for their investigation.
Did the administration try to discredit Wilson? You betcha. As they should have. He was obviously lying about the Niger connection and along with the cabal inside the CIA tried to effect the outcome of the 2004 election. The fact that his wife was also part of that cabal and used her influence to send a diplomat to investigate this link was also a fact that needed to be known by all parties.
None of this was against the law, and ole’ Fitz knows this.
So after all these years and all this money we get Libby. What a joke.
Some interesting reactions across the blogosphere.
This is the part of the jury instructions — pages 74-75 — that is hanging up the jury:
Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 16, 2003, that during a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.
It’s easy to criticize the jury — they can seem easily confused — but the problem here is not the jury. It is the charge. This is the entirety of Count 3 (and Count 5, as well): Libby testified that he told Cooper that reporters were telling him, Libby, that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, but that he, Libby, did not know if it was true. Cooper testified that Libby did not say that. There are no notes, no recordings, no records, no nothing to support either man’s story. Just Libby’s testimony versus Cooper’s testimony. And prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has asked the jury to convict Libby of a felony, one that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, on that astonishingly flimsy allegation. No wonder the jury is confused.
I assume David Shuster, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann are incoherent with glee (the "incoherent" is a safe bet in most scenarios). However, we eagerly await word from David Gregory as to whether Ari Fleischer was credible when he claimed he leaked to Messrs. Gregory and Dickerson.
And we wonder whether Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Russert will enjoy their continued role in the spotlight as they become a focal point of the appeals.
I’m not shocked he was convicted, he’s a Republican. I’ve got my money on the prediction that it will be a cold day in h*ll before Representative "Cold Cash" Jefferson will even be charged.
It is curious that the jury thought that Libby was less trustworthy than Tim Russert or Matt Cooper, when it came down to it though the jury did find that Cooper wasn’t nearly as trustworthy as Russert. All had motives here to be less than forthcoming – for Russert and Cooper, it was their journalistic careers and for Libby it was being a member of the Administration.
It was the word of one man versus the word of another.
And yes, I still think there was no pretext for Fitzgerald’s investigation, that he knew there was no possible crime to be investigated here from day one (forcing him to invent the crime of "conspiracy to violate the Wilsons’ civil rights," though he couldn’t quite say which rights had been violated), which makes this all a travesty and Libby’s lies immaterial as a matter of law.
But context is everything. And considering the fact that there was (and still is) a faction in the intelligence community opposed to the Administration’s foreign policy and that this cabal used leaks in order to not only discredit the Bush Administration but also to deliberately interfere in the 2004 Presidential election, one can understand this “push back” by the Bushies while still condemning it.
Scooter Libby is going to jail. Kind of a dismal scalp for Fitzgerald to hang on his lodgepole but after nearly 4 years of investigations, it’s all he had.
The whole Libby affair remains something of a mystery. President Bush ordered all executive branch personnel to cooperate with the Fitzgerald investigation. Other people, apparently including Dick Cheney, told investigators that they had discussed Wilson and Plame with Libby. It’s hard to understand why Libby’s testimony was so out of step with that of the other Executive Branch witnesses. At the end of the day, imperfect memory seemed as good an explanation as any. But the jury didn’t see it that way.
UPDATE
Michelle Malkin has up on her blog the identity of one of the jurors, Denis Collins, who is a author. Here is the description of one of his books:
SPYING: The Secret History of History Book Description Everyone, at some time in his or her life, fantasizes about being a spy–James Bond, Mata Hari, George Smiley, Maxwell Smart. At the new International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C., more than a million visitors have stepped into the secret history of history–and have learned what it is really like to live undercover. This distinctive and fascinating book at once distills and expands upon that experience, with inside information on how spies do their jobs, interviews with operatives, and hundreds of photographs and descriptions of tools of the trade.
Biographies of legendary spies and how they completed their special operations are included, along with timelines showing the developments of bugs, surveillance tools, weapons, and disguises. Letters, maps, examples of disguises, dead drops, and rare photos make spies and their operations from 2000 BC to the present live and breathe on every page.
About the Author
Denis Collins is a journalist who writes for the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, and the Miami Herald. He lives in Washington, DC.
And guess what he said in a news conference?
"The primary thing that convinced us on most of the accounts was the alleged conversation with Russert…It was either false (didn’t happen) or did happen…Mr. Libby was either told by or told to about Mrs. Wilson at least nine times…we believed he had a bad memory…but contradicted by testimony that he had an incredible grasp of details…even if he forgot who told him, it seemed very unlikely that he would have not remembered about Mrs. Wilson…tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury…jury asked "Where’s Rove? Where’s the other guys?" It seemed like he was the fall guy."
You wanna bet a successful appeal is going to come out of this? Jurors are asked for their knowledge of the case and are required to be sequestered from news about the case.
Don’t know about you but this guy sounds a bit fishy to me.
UPDATE 2145hrs PST
Tom Maguire with the best post yet on the comedy known as Patrick Fitzgerald.
And Seixon at The Strata-Sphere with a great observation:
However, the jurors had sympathy for Mr. Libby. Why?
Denis Collins said that “a number of times” they asked themselves, “what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys….He was the fall guy.”
Here’s to you, Jason Leopold, for a job well done! Remember kids, it’s not getting the truth out that counts, it’s getting out a story that will fool as many people as possible to permeate the public conscience. Apropos that, I hear Leopold is involved in writing the script for the upcoming movie about Mrs. Fair Game…
Other’s Blogging:
- Michelle Malkin
- Sister Toldjah
- Hot Air
- Confederate Yankee
- Macsmind
- Ankle Biting Pundits
- Blogs For Bush
- Blue Crab Boulevard
See author page
I’m not surprised that you think nothing of this, Curt.
Here’s what happened. Libby lied, which obstructed the investigation from moving further and actually solving the crime. That’s how these investigations work. You have to have people telling the truth so that you can figure out what really happened. That’s why it becomes extremely suspicious when someone lies in the process. So, while no one has been or maybe even will be charged for outing Plame, we are still left to wonder why Scooter lied, right?
Way to stick up for our men and women in service to our country. You’re truly a great American. Do you also pick and choose which members of the military you support?
Wilson said that there was no deal and there couldn’t have been a deal. Are you saying that there was?
This is one of the arguments from the right that I have the most trouble with. Joseph Wilson was one of the most qualified individuals who could’ve carried out this mission. He was former Ambassador to both countries, and therefore, very familiar with all who could’ve been involved. I know you don’t like him for other reasons, but it’s not absurd that Wilson was chosen to go.
This investigation has proven that there was a conspiracy within the White House to discredit Wilson, which included outing his wife at the CIA. This was a treasonous act, and should be treated as such. For you to defend him to the end like this is despicable. This is just taking partisanship to a new level. What would it take to convince you that Libby is guilty and that what he did was wrong? Could anything convince you of that?
About ten years ago I got into an argument with Brad DeLong, former assistant Secretary of the Treasury and dedicated Clintonista, about Clinton and perjury. Naturally he was maintaining that since sex isn’t a crime he shouldn’t be punished. We ended the discussion when he called me Barking Mad for believing that the law should be applied _as written_ no grey. I don’t think that a crime was committed in the revelation that lame worked for teh CIA. But that doesn’t matter!
Lying under oath or lying to investigators is a crime. It is a crime and those who commit crimes should be punished. That being said the real tragedy here is that Scooter isn’t joining Bill at the Big House.
Check out this article in Vanity Fair by Michael Wolff explaining why Libby lied. It’s the most coherent explanation of who, why and what it means that I’ve seen.
There was no crime. She was NOT covert. Get over it. This was, and is, a well orchestrated bunch of angry CIA agents trying to bring about a result in the election. Period.
Your a real winner. She was a CIA desk jockey, not in the military, and obviously biased against the man who was doing the right thing to protect this country. Your damn right I won’t stick up for her sorry ass.
Yup, been down this road before here…go check it out. Not going to go over the minutia once again with you.
It most certainly was absurd since he was not a CIA agent, just a diplomat who knew a few people over there. He didn’t have any training or experience in investigations of this sort and we’re supposed to believe he is the most qualified….riiiiggggght.
As I said in my post the administration wanted to bring to light the obvious bias and partisanship going on by Wilson and Plame in trying to bring down an election as any administration would do, including your precious Clintons. Out Plame? Most definitely, since she was responsible for sending the jackass over there in the first place….and guess what, she was not covert so they outed a desk jockey.
But in the end we get nobody indicted for leaking. Libby is convicted of perjury by the testimony of people who lost notes and couldn’t remember conversations by a jury that included one person who may well have been very biased from the get-go.
And one last thing that I know will piss you and your lefty friends off. Cheney, Rove, and Bush have all been investigated by this “outstanding” and tenacious prosecutor, and they have been cleared. No more charges forthcoming, the investigation is over….all cleared.
Damn Bushitler! He got away with it again!
PS – I find it quite funny how the lefties are all ecstatic over this perjury charge when they once told us that a perjury charge doesn’t matter when a certain someone couldn’t keep their pants on. And we most certainly will not be hearing about doing away with a special prosecutor and their powers now will we?
And don’t let me even get started on Sandy Burgler and the outrage from the left about his actions….
Hypocrites.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to answer you Reasic, I long ago wrote you off as a tinhat wearing leftist and it’s probably the biggest waste of time I spend on this blog.
And I’m partisan…oh that is rich.
Apparently Reasic is cool with the idea that rogue government employees (Plame and Wilson) should abuse their position to undermine the foreign policy of our elected leadership. Can’t wait for the first time President Hillary locks up a leaker for him to cheer her on.
Question: I forget, did Joe Wilson provide testimony to the Senate intell panel or any other government agency regarding his trip to Africa?
Is he totally unaccountable for the lies he told about the trip and who sent him?
I know Reasic’s answer and I’m not interested in any more leftwing lunacy. So if someone grounded in a better sense of reality could help me out I’d appreciate it.
I wish you guys would get it through your thick skulls that just because I’m against one particular person in one instance does not make me for their opponent. I’m not for the Clintons.
Here’s what I think, since you didn’t ask and instead assumed. I don’t think there should’ve been an investigation about Clinton having sex. However, since there was and he lied, I think he should definitely have been indicted, and I stand by that indictment. No one should lie to a grand jury in an investigation.
I don’t know what he did. I’ve read about your outrage over how he took documents that he shouldn’t have. Ive also read from other sources that those documents were provided to the commission, so I’m not sure what to think about that. However, just like anyone else, if he did something illegal, I think he should be prosecuted.
I’m against corruption, not Republicans – oh, and neocons. I may actually vote Republican, if given the right choice in the election.
Here’s what another former CIA officer had to say about Plame’s status:
It’s very simple, really. Those that Plame dealt with overseas thought she worked for a company called Brewster-Jennings. Any and all work she was undertaking at the time had to be scrapped because of her identity coming out. The lives of any informants she might have been working with were endangered. At the very least, information about her status at the CIA was classified, which would mean that Libby leaked classified information. The determination of her status had not come yet. The investigator was piecing together the puzzle of what happened and who said what to whom and when, and Libby obstructed that process by lying about it. It’s not like he just forgot, either. He said he learned about her status from Russert, and Russert specifically denied that. Libby learned about it from others in the White House and he knew that. There were also lapses in his memory, where he supposedly remembered it one day and forgot it the next. This was a solid case of Libby lying to a grand jury for whatever reason, and that reason doesn’t matter. If he lied, he’s guilty.
Now, as far as the investigation not continuing, I don’t know what to think about that. I think there are clear implications from this trial that Cheney and others were involved with the plot to get back at the Wilsons. That was the prosecutor’s case. So, if Libby was found guilty, that helps to validate his theory on what happened. There are many reasons why an investigation may not continue, including not having enough evidence, so I don’t think we can assume that no one else did anything illegal just because there won’t be an investigation.
Sorry about the double post. It was taking forever, so I stopped and reposted. I guess it took both.
Mike,
Tell me what, specifically you think should’ve happened. The Vice President asked the CIA about the possibility that this happened. So, they did. They sent Wilson, who was familiar with everyone who might have been involved in such a sale. Would you rather they sent someone who wasn’t? Plame was also not in a position to approve Wilson’s trip. That had to be done by her supervisor. So, are you saying that her supervisor was also a left-wing kook? Also, Wilson’s claims were that no sale took place, and no sale could have taken place. Even if Saddam had someone ask about it, it couldn’t have happened. Was that also incorrect? If not, that means you want to consider the fact that Saddam looked into something but nothing came of it, or could have come of it, as a good reason to go to war. Hell, why not go to war because you just want to? And how about those aluminum tubes? Do you also believe the claim that was made that they were for centrifuges?
All I’m doing here is I’m trying to demostrate that maybe they were just trying to get at the truth. We know for a fact that other claims made by the White House about Saddam were untrue, such as the aluminum tubes claim. Cheney, on the Meet the Press, even said that the aluminum tubes were what raised his “level of concern”:
All false. So, this was at worst an enormous blunder and a stunning display of incompetence, or it was outright lying. Either way, they were wrong. Now, you choose to stick by their claims why?
For the last time, I’m not a lib and I don’t care about Clinton.
Reasic: If you’re not clear about the damage to National Security by Berger, the National Archives Inspector General summarizes it as “a breach of National Security.”
http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/OIGFOIA.pdf
And the full background on that breach comes from the House Oversight Committee:
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/BergerReport010907.pdf
If, as you assert, no damage was done, then WHAT was Berger doing? Did he spill coffee on the documents and was taking them out for cleaning? It was a white wash all right.
As for Wilson’s lies. The Senate Intell Committee concluded that his media claims were false and that his wife WAS the key person in getting him the assignment.
As for President Bush’s 16 words, they have been proven correct by both the Senate Intell Report and British Butler Review.
But Wilson is never held to account for his false statements and Scotter Libby faces jail time for the equivalent of not remembering what he had for breakfast.
I suggest that if you are fuzzy regarding the details of the fraud that has been perpetrated on the American people by Wilson/Plame, you go back and check Curt’s index for more background material.
Mike,
I looked at the pdf, and the part that caught my eye was the “Results of the Investigation”. It said that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to two years probation, 3 years without access to classified info, fines, etc. Is this true?
Then why have they expressed regret that they were included in the speech? That doesn’t add up. The carefully worded phrase may have been technically accurate, but the implications, which were far greater, especially when coupled with the false claims about aluminum tubes, were erroneous. There was no WMD program. That’s what this boils down to. The implication of these statements was that there was a WMD program.
What false statements? As I said before, this is not a situation where Scooter just forgot what happened. He specifically claimed that he got the information from Russert, who testified that was not true. Also, there were holes in his memory. In order to believe his memory excuse, the jury would have to have believed that he remembered it one day, not the next, and again on another day, and so on. His defense was filled with holes. It was definitely not “the equivalent of not remembering what he had for breakfast”.
I was pleased to see that you made it through a response without assigning some liberal label. Maybe we’re making progress? 😛
Ah, Larry C. Johnson. Yes, you’re about as nonpartisan in your criticism of the Bush Administration as he is. Can you not see, that you only question facts when they inconveniently do not support your beliefs about this Administration? You can deny being a lefty all you want to, and delude yourself in the belief that you are rationally neutral in fact-gathering, but the reality is, you are partisanly aligned to believe the worst about this Administration. Point out just one blogpost of yours that is not partisanly aligned with lefties, on the issues of the day. Please show me where you have ever been balanced. This whole PlameGate affair was a total waste of government time, money, and resources. And the Libby Trial, even moreso.
Didn’t you already get your answer in the comments section in the link Curt provided:
Btw, here’s the famous 16 words, just as a reminder of exactly what was said:
Emphasis, mine.
Having read Curt’s link, where you two have been down this road before, no amount of fact presentation is going to sway you, because you’ve entrenched yourself in your own beliefs. That’s why Mike and Curt think of responding to you as a time-waster. You believe in what you want to believe. That’s what it boils down to.
“There was no WMD program?”
Where do you get such information.
Surely NOT from the Unanimous Senate Intell Report.
Certainly NOT from the Duelfer Report.
Not from the statements of Democrats pre-invasion who were privvy to the same intelligence.
You can go on and on and on about aluminum tubes but it does not change the fact that Saddam had a highly sophisticated WMD program and could have reconstituted an effective, active effort within moments of the cessation of UN sanctions.
Why Bush backed down from the 16 words probably relates to the CIA’s waffling on the issue.
But the CIA debriefed Wilson after his trip to Niger and I have the PDF of that debrief through State Dept. Intell here:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan23/DX71.pdf
Tab 4 (starting on page 8) is the CIA report describing what Joe Wilson learned in Niger:
“…In June 1999 Barka, A Nigerien/Algerian Businessman, approached him [Prime Minister Mayaki] and insisted that that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq…. Mayaki said that he interpreted the phrase “expanding commercial relations” to mean that Iraq wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.”
Well there you go. And of course when we invaded Iraq we found that Saddam Hussein had a 500 ton mountain of uranium .
Interestingly, the two paragraphs immediately following Joe Wilson’s report about Iraq’s attempts to buy uranium describe “An Iranian delegation” which came to Niger “to discuss buying 400 tons of yellowcake.”
Wilson lied to government authorities, and may have done so under oath yet he is not prosecuted. Democrats would scream bloody murder.
No doubt the same reasoning applies in the Berger case. “A breach of National Security” is a serious matter. Even the judge found the plea deal to be too lenient and increased the fine five fold.
But what is really interesting about the Archives Inspector General’s report is that Archives staff first phoned Clinton scandal burier and former WH Counsel Bruce Lindsey upon learning that Berger was stealing the nation’s most closely guarded documents.
Even still, Berger lied to Archives investigators claiming that Archives staff must have missplaced the documents.
Neither Berger, nor Wilson will ever be held to account for the full measure of their crimes and in the case of Wilson, the most massive fraud committed against the Commander in Chief at a time of war.
If you are puzzled by the timid reaction by the Administration in pursuing both matters then join the club. One can only conclude that after walking into a now four year buzz saw for daring to rightly suggest that Wilson’s wife was the reason Wilson went to Africa, the Administration is reluctant to face another Democrat/Media propaganda offensive.
This is the funny part to me. You guys make such a big deal out of Berger and Wilson and how they should be prosecuted, but the White House has not pursued it. If it makes so much sense to you, why haven’t they done so? Maybe it’s because you’ve got your facts wrong?
How about the WMDs that you think were in Iraq? Why doesn’t the administration ever state these “facts” that you seem to be so sure of? Why have they instead actually stated that the intelligence was wrong. Should not the administration’s reaction be the metric by which you should gauge your own? Maybe your opinions are all based on faulty information. I would think this would make you want to double check yourselves, but no, you just shrug your shoulders and keep on trucking with your conspiracy theories.
Let’s use a little logic here for once. First of all, your quote from the report is not all that Wilson found. He also talked to other sources and concluded that no such deal ever happened or even could have possibly been made, even if they wanted to, so the whole argument is moot. You’re going by one representative of Niger’s interpretation of a communication in which uranium was never mentioned. I would not consider that to be solid evidence. However, you want it to be so, so you do.
As to the uranium we found, it was all locked up tight just as the IAEA had left it. This was never used, and was a declared stockpile. There was no attempt to use this uranium. The way you write about it, you make it seem as though a deal went down and this uranium was purchased from Niger.
So, here’s comes the logic part. If Saddam already had 500 tons of uranium at his disposal, what did he need with any more from Niger? Answer: he didn’t. Case closed. This is all a big waste of time. You guys are relying on a bunch of hearsay, and you’re drawing many baseless conclusions from sketchy information. Our intelligence concluded after the war that Saddam’s weapons had been destroyed back in 1991 and no attempt was made to start any programs back up.
Check out my post on this subject to see excerpts from the Iraq Survey Group report.
Give it up guys. I learned long ago that Reasic was one of those all to common lefties who cherry pick facts and ignore anything that would refute the world they see. Your time would be better spent having discussions with the rare lefty who hasn’t dug their heels in….I know, a rare breed.
And Reasic is not one of those.
That’s funny, Curt. It is based upon the assumption that you are right and that anyone who opposes you and fails to accept your opinions has “dug in their heels”. That’s not at all what you’re accusing me of doing, is it?
Listen, I’ve got my sources, and you’ve got yours. Every time I bring up mine in a conversation here, you talk about giving up because it’s useless. I want us to discuss both of our sources and what they really say. It is currently my opinion that your interpretations are wrong. If you actually tried to convince me otherwise, you might succeed. So far, I don’t feel like a sufficient effort has been put forth.
For instance, Mike mentioned how we found 500 tons of uranium in Iraq. Then, I explained this and provided documentation to show where I’m getting the idea that Saddam had no WMDs. If you think I’m wrong, refute my source or my interpretation of it. As it stands, it seems to me that the ISG has declared that Saddam had no WMDs. Am I wrong?