For those claiming Libbey shouldn't have been punished
Or, those who keep going "B-b-b-but Armitage!" Lifted from this letter:
enough with the Armitage crap!
how dumb do they (and above poster) think we are with the irrelevant red herrings?
Let's see: Wilson's wife got him the job, so he's a lying dumbass. Richard Clarke may be homosexual, so ignore his book about terrorism. A few nutballs are making up stories about Kerry's service in Vietnam, so don't vote for him. Wilson's report maybe had errors, so his wife deserved to be outed as a covert CIA agent. (seriously- why couldn't the vengeful BushCo respond by saying/leaking that Wilson's a dumbass, a partisan Democrat, instigated the trip on his own? It would have been at least relevant, and wouldn't require an illegal and treasonous act.)
If you are going to manipulate us with some talking point (like "but Armitage leaked first!"), at least give us the benefit of logic.
Okay- several reporters received the leak. The leak was a horrible act directly resulting in damage to the CIA's current operations and national security. This is bad, and criminal, if done intentionally and with knowledge of her covert status
Novak went out of his way in his original column to say TWO high-level sources leaked to him. So solving the Armitage question explained just half the answer. Meanwhile, Fitzgerald was deposing reporters who say they got the leak from Libby, Rove and/or Armitage.
But, by the "Armitage did it" reasoning, you argue that the Armitage info should have caused Fitzgerald to close the whole investigation?? Even though most of the reporters deposed had said their primary source was Libby?
Even in a hypothetical world where Armitage was the primary source for everyone, Libby was also a source and that's still a potential crime. AND Libby got himself indicted because he, unlike Armitage, lied under oath about leaking and his role in it.
RE: the strength of evidence against him, it all stems from this: Libby swore under oath that he first heard/knew anything about Valerie Plame from Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, no earlier and from nobody else.
Russert testified that, nope, Libby in fact told Russert about Plame on this date, and it was news to Russert.
Russert's supposedly faulty memory? Irrelevant, even if true, which the judge was smart enough to understand - the proof of guilt re: the Russert lie was in all the acts/conversations Libby had with other witnesses BEFORE July 10 or 11, the date Libby swore that he first heard of Plame/Wilson.
Judith Miller (and her contemporaneous notes) proved this was a lie. As did notes from a June meeting with Libby/Cheney, Cheney scribbling notes about Wilson's CIA wife's sending him on this "junket."
Testimony/evidence about Libby then blabbing re: Plame before his July 10/11 date: a CIA officer, an Under Secretary of State, Libby's CIA briefer, VP Public Affairs Assistant, an inquiry from Libby to VP counsel about accessing CIA info on Plame/Wilson.
Libby also lied that he didn't confirm Plame's status with Matthew Cooper. Libby says he told Cooper he had no idea about Plame. Cooper's notes, emails, testimony prove otherwise, that Libby eagerly confirmed the leaked info.
So, its confirmed that Armitage, Rove, and Libby each leaked to various reporters. However, the first two appeared truthful in their testimony, so weren't perjurers or obstructing justice.
As for the underlying crime being investigated, Fitzgerald found that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent/knowledge about Plame's status. This is in part due to Libby's false statements/lies and denials of any higher involvement (like explaining what Cheney's intention was from his notes re: Wilson's credibility damaged by his CIA wife..)
In Libby's case, he leaked (probably criminal but not enough evidence to indict) AND he then committed all sorts of new crimes when he lied under oath re: other potential suspects, which made it hard for Fitzgerald to pursue i.e. Rove/Cheney's role.
So that's why he's convicted of not just perjury, but obstruction of justice, of preventing the prosecutor from getting to the bottom of whether someone purposely "outed" an undercover agent.
Back to Armitage: Fitzgerald treated Armitage as he treated Rove: a person of interest, but not enough proof to prosecute them for the leak itself. And they appeared honest during their investigation testimony, so no (or insufficient) grounds to indict them in a cover-up.
Armitage being the first source for Novak or others is entirely irrelevant, as far as the leaking, AND as far as the cover-up and perjury by Libby- Libby was proven to be a liar and impeding an investigation thanks to multiple witnesses AND their contemporaneous notes.
This Armitage red herring is so tiresome. So when Lyle Menendez was convicted, they should have cancelled the prosecution of Erik? Because we learned someone else did it too? I guess if Erik were a Republican, our govt. would go for that version of "justice."
Speaking of red herrings, I caught Michael Savage today and Bushies sound so STUPID blathering about how Libby isn't really guilty since there was no underlying criminal charge, and Fitzgerald basically backed him into a corner under oath and forced him to give specifics on something that was so trivial... thus, so what if he lied and broke the law about little details? (as for WHY he lied, who cares...)
HELLO. Welcome to your late 1990s flashback whiplash- Clinton, deposed about a sexual harassment claim (dismissed for lack of merit before impeachment) based on a years-old two minute encounter with the plaintiff... Clinton is cornered under oath re: the exact details of his genatalia contact with a willing Monica who has nothing to do with the underlying lawsuit.... And Clinton lies to protect his family and privacy from his personal shame and pain.... contrast Libby, lying about whether he committed a crime, and who ordered him to do so.
So Ken Starr could find out if the cigar made Monica climax. Because THAT says high crimes/misdemeanors?
enough with the Armitage crap!
how dumb do they (and above poster) think we are with the irrelevant red herrings?
Let's see: Wilson's wife got him the job, so he's a lying dumbass. Richard Clarke may be homosexual, so ignore his book about terrorism. A few nutballs are making up stories about Kerry's service in Vietnam, so don't vote for him. Wilson's report maybe had errors, so his wife deserved to be outed as a covert CIA agent. (seriously- why couldn't the vengeful BushCo respond by saying/leaking that Wilson's a dumbass, a partisan Democrat, instigated the trip on his own? It would have been at least relevant, and wouldn't require an illegal and treasonous act.)
If you are going to manipulate us with some talking point (like "but Armitage leaked first!"), at least give us the benefit of logic.
Okay- several reporters received the leak. The leak was a horrible act directly resulting in damage to the CIA's current operations and national security. This is bad, and criminal, if done intentionally and with knowledge of her covert status
Novak went out of his way in his original column to say TWO high-level sources leaked to him. So solving the Armitage question explained just half the answer. Meanwhile, Fitzgerald was deposing reporters who say they got the leak from Libby, Rove and/or Armitage.
But, by the "Armitage did it" reasoning, you argue that the Armitage info should have caused Fitzgerald to close the whole investigation?? Even though most of the reporters deposed had said their primary source was Libby?
Even in a hypothetical world where Armitage was the primary source for everyone, Libby was also a source and that's still a potential crime. AND Libby got himself indicted because he, unlike Armitage, lied under oath about leaking and his role in it.
RE: the strength of evidence against him, it all stems from this: Libby swore under oath that he first heard/knew anything about Valerie Plame from Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, no earlier and from nobody else.
Russert testified that, nope, Libby in fact told Russert about Plame on this date, and it was news to Russert.
Russert's supposedly faulty memory? Irrelevant, even if true, which the judge was smart enough to understand - the proof of guilt re: the Russert lie was in all the acts/conversations Libby had with other witnesses BEFORE July 10 or 11, the date Libby swore that he first heard of Plame/Wilson.
Judith Miller (and her contemporaneous notes) proved this was a lie. As did notes from a June meeting with Libby/Cheney, Cheney scribbling notes about Wilson's CIA wife's sending him on this "junket."
Testimony/evidence about Libby then blabbing re: Plame before his July 10/11 date: a CIA officer, an Under Secretary of State, Libby's CIA briefer, VP Public Affairs Assistant, an inquiry from Libby to VP counsel about accessing CIA info on Plame/Wilson.
Libby also lied that he didn't confirm Plame's status with Matthew Cooper. Libby says he told Cooper he had no idea about Plame. Cooper's notes, emails, testimony prove otherwise, that Libby eagerly confirmed the leaked info.
So, its confirmed that Armitage, Rove, and Libby each leaked to various reporters. However, the first two appeared truthful in their testimony, so weren't perjurers or obstructing justice.
As for the underlying crime being investigated, Fitzgerald found that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent/knowledge about Plame's status. This is in part due to Libby's false statements/lies and denials of any higher involvement (like explaining what Cheney's intention was from his notes re: Wilson's credibility damaged by his CIA wife..)
In Libby's case, he leaked (probably criminal but not enough evidence to indict) AND he then committed all sorts of new crimes when he lied under oath re: other potential suspects, which made it hard for Fitzgerald to pursue i.e. Rove/Cheney's role.
So that's why he's convicted of not just perjury, but obstruction of justice, of preventing the prosecutor from getting to the bottom of whether someone purposely "outed" an undercover agent.
Back to Armitage: Fitzgerald treated Armitage as he treated Rove: a person of interest, but not enough proof to prosecute them for the leak itself. And they appeared honest during their investigation testimony, so no (or insufficient) grounds to indict them in a cover-up.
Armitage being the first source for Novak or others is entirely irrelevant, as far as the leaking, AND as far as the cover-up and perjury by Libby- Libby was proven to be a liar and impeding an investigation thanks to multiple witnesses AND their contemporaneous notes.
This Armitage red herring is so tiresome. So when Lyle Menendez was convicted, they should have cancelled the prosecution of Erik? Because we learned someone else did it too? I guess if Erik were a Republican, our govt. would go for that version of "justice."
Speaking of red herrings, I caught Michael Savage today and Bushies sound so STUPID blathering about how Libby isn't really guilty since there was no underlying criminal charge, and Fitzgerald basically backed him into a corner under oath and forced him to give specifics on something that was so trivial... thus, so what if he lied and broke the law about little details? (as for WHY he lied, who cares...)
HELLO. Welcome to your late 1990s flashback whiplash- Clinton, deposed about a sexual harassment claim (dismissed for lack of merit before impeachment) based on a years-old two minute encounter with the plaintiff... Clinton is cornered under oath re: the exact details of his genatalia contact with a willing Monica who has nothing to do with the underlying lawsuit.... And Clinton lies to protect his family and privacy from his personal shame and pain.... contrast Libby, lying about whether he committed a crime, and who ordered him to do so.
So Ken Starr could find out if the cigar made Monica climax. Because THAT says high crimes/misdemeanors?