Do you think "Scooter" Libby" should get a pardon?

[Navy Pride]

your comments please:

 

[Thelost1]

Why would he?

 

[Hatuey]

Why would he?

Because Clinton gave out pardons. At least thats what I'm waiting to hear.

 

[Thelost1]

Because Clinton gave out pardons. At least thats what I'm waiting to hear.

You have become very cynical.

 

[Hatuey]

You have become very cynical.

It's sad but true I'm just waiting for the first Clinton reference. Libby deserves what he got.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It's sad but true I'm just waiting for the first Clinton reference. Libby deserves what he got.

You have become very cynical.

Because Clinton gave out pardons. At least thats what I'm waiting to hear.

It's not about what Clinton did or did not do pardon wise, as this has no bearing on this case. Here is why Libby should be pardoned:
1) The original "outing" charge was dismissed
2) He was accused of obstructing justice and perjury for a crime that didn't exist. Obstruction is a catchall charge that can be applied in a variety of ways.
3) This was a process crime(ala Martha Stewart), in that there wasn't even a true victim in this.
4) This one is pure opinion. But if people have gotten a slap on the wrist for stealing documents, lying under oath, and even property fraud, what makes Libby's "crime" deserving of more punishment, especially considering he wouldn't be under oath if the original charges(which were dropped) would not have been processed.
- I chose to believe that this was a prosecuter out for blood, and therefore he went at it with a "facts be damned" mentality. I welcome others opinions.

 

[disneydude]

Because Clinton gave out pardons. At least thats what I'm waiting to hear.

EXACTLY, you have to look at the source of this poll. NP's answer to everything is either to cut and run or blame Clinton. NP will say...well CLinton pardoned criminals so why not GWB.....I'll say it here.....I think Clinton was wrong in most of his pardons and I think it will be a huge miscarriage of justice when GWB pardons Libby. I hope he does....because it will just cement the level of corruption in this administration....but then again....thats what they must have meant when they talked about "restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse".....just more lies and talking points.

 

[Billo_Really]

No pardon!

Who's next?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

At what point did perjury etc stop being crimes?

 

[Stinger]

At what point did perjury etc stop being crimes?

It didn't if the false statement was made willingly, knowingly and for the purpose of obstructing justice.

Has that shown up yet?

There was nothing to obstruct, the witnesses's memories were no better and in some cases worse than Libby's. What was the convincing beyond a reasonable doubt evidence Libby knowingly and willfully lied about something of no consequence anyway.

Do you think he should go to jail?

 

[Just Me 2]

I heard that the woman that he supposedly outed didn't have protection from being outed. I didn't catch the whole thing. I guess there are agents that are granted some sorta security that their names will not be reveled but she didn't have that. Anyone know?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It didn't if the false statement was made willingly, knowingly and for the purpose of obstructing justice.

Where's this "obstructing justice" clause you speak of?
Here's the section of US code that Libby was charged under:

US CODE: Title 18,1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I heard that the woman that he supposedly outed didn't have protection from being outed.

Obviously she didn't have good enough protection cause she got outted.

I didn't catch the whole thing. I guess there are agents that are granted some sorta security that their names will not be reveled but she didn't have that. Anyone know?

Well, the CIA, FBI, the DoJ, and the Special Prosecutor all think she was a undercover agent whose identity was classified.
Stinger, Navy Pride and some pro-war pundits think otherwise.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Just Me 2]

Obviously she didn't have good enough protection cause she got outted.


Well, the CIA, FBI, the DoJ, and the Special Prosecutor all think she was a undercover agent whose identity was classified.
Stinger, Navy Pride and some pro-war pundits think otherwise.

Does that answer your question?

Did you read this some where that he CIA, FBI and DOJ are saying she was a covert agent? I couldn't find anything on it maybe I am using the wrong terms to search it.

 

[jfuh]

Did you read this some where that he CIA, FBI and DOJ are saying she was a covert agent? I couldn't find anything on it maybe I am using the wrong terms to search it.

Not to take credit, this is simon's source


The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert
Newsweek
Feb. 13, 2006 issue...special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why would he?

Because there's no reason why he should have been questioned in the first place seeing as Fitzgerald knew from day one that Armitage is the one who gave Plame's name to Novak, that and it is setting a very dangerous precedent to criminalize a lapse in memory, I mean if this is the new standard from now on anyone is going to plead the 5th when infront of a grand jury.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Obviously she didn't have good enough protection cause she got outted.



Well, the CIA, FBI, the DoJ, and the Special Prosecutor all think she was a undercover agent whose identity was classified.

Ya and classified isn't the same thing as covert. Leaking classified information evidently isn't something people get arrested for if they were the NYT's would be shut down by now.

 

[Dogger807]

Personally I think the border guards are more deserving of pardons.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Ya and classified isn't the same thing as covert. Leaking classified information evidently isn't something people get arrested for if they were the NYT's would be shut down by now.

Out of curiosity, do you s'pose that the terms 'undercover' and 'covert' are related?
What do you make of her "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and [that] the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity?

Did you read this some where that he CIA, FBI and DOJ are saying she was a covert agent? I couldn't find anything on it maybe I am using the wrong terms to search it.

Letter from the CIA to Conyers

30 January 2004
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Conyers:

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2003 to the Director of Central intelligence (DCI) regarding any contacts the Central intelligence agency has had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating undercover. The DCI has asked me to respond your letter on his behalf.

Executive order 12333 requires CIA to report to the Attorney General "possible violations of criminal law." In accordance with executive order 12333 on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the chief of the counterespionage section of DOJ noting concern with recent articles on this subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the criminal division of DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed, DOJ that the CIA's Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent again to DOJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003.

By letter dated 16 September 2003, and in accordance with standard practice in such matters, the CIA informed DOJ that the Agency's investigation into this matter was complete, provided DOJ a memorandum setting forth the results of that investigation, and requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter. In a 29 September 2 003 letter, DOJ advised that the Counterespionage Section of DOJ had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter.

Stanley M. Moskowitz
Director of Congressional Affairs
​

There're more of course, but why beat the horse for being dead?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... it is setting a very dangerous precedent to criminalize a lapse in memory...

It didn't criminalize anything. Perjury was already illegal.

"It was just very hard to believe how he could remember it on a Tuesday and forget it on a Thursday and then remember it two days later."
​

Ain't it though?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Out of curiosity, do you s'pose that the terms 'undercover' and 'covert' are related?
What do you make of her "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and [that] the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity?

It has been established that she was not covert why do you people continue to push this lie? I've already went over the newsweek B.S. story but I suppose I have to do it again:

That seems to be the final word on those key questions. But the story might not be as clear-cut as it appears. The newly released portions of a judge's opinion to which Newsweek refers come from a February 15, 2005 opinion by Judge David Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In that opinion, Tatel wrote:

As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years" — representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support.​

While that appears to be a definitive statement — end of story — a look at another newly released document suggests that it is possible Tatel might have misunderstood something Fitzgerald wrote, taking it as a straightforward assertion when its actual meaning was less clear.



Given that "the record omits specifics about Plame's work," Tatel based his analysis on a footnote in an August 27, 2004, affidavit submitted to the court by Fitzgerald. That document, too, was released last week. In the footnote, Fitzgerald wrote:

If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.​

That is the entire text upon which Tatel based his conclusion. Was Fitzgerald saying that he knew in fact that the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal Plame's identity and that she had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years? Or was he simply reciting the requirements for prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? It's not entirely clear. The only fully clear part of it is that Fitzgerald had no direct evidence that Libby knew Plame was covert.
Byron York on Valerie Plame on National Review Online

Then there's this:

[FONT=times new roman,times]Toensing in WaPo:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derrierre. [/FONT]​

[FONT=times new roman,times]The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.[/FONT]​

[FONT=times new roman,times]There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.[/FONT]​

American Thinker Blog: Bait and switch and trap: The real story behind the Libby Trial

Letter from the CIA to Conyers

30 January 2004​

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.​

Ranking Democratic Member​

Committee on the Judiciary​

House of Representatives​

Washington, DC 20515​

Dear Mr. Conyers:​

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2003 to the Director of Central intelligence (DCI) regarding any contacts the Central intelligence agency has had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating undercover. The DCI has asked me to respond your letter on his behalf.​

Executive order 12333 requires CIA to report to the Attorney General "possible violations of criminal law." In accordance with executive order 12333 on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the chief of the counterespionage section of DOJ noting concern with recent articles on this subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the criminal division of DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed, DOJ that the CIA's Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent again to DOJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003.​

By letter dated 16 September 2003, and in accordance with standard practice in such matters, the CIA informed DOJ that the Agency's investigation into this matter was complete, provided DOJ a memorandum setting forth the results of that investigation, and requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter. In a 29 September 2 003 letter, DOJ advised that the Counterespionage Section of DOJ had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter.​

Stanley M. Moskowitz​

Director of Congressional Affairs​

There're more of course, but why beat the horse for being dead?

Umm the investigation was to find out if a covert agent's identity had been leaked and by whome and guess what she wasn't covert her identity was only "classified" which is why nobody has been charged with that crime.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It didn't criminalize anything. Perjury was already illegal.

"It was just very hard to believe how he could remember it on a Tuesday and forget it on a Thursday and then remember it two days later."​

Ain't it though?

Funny that you would use the quote from the guy who should never have been on the ****ing jury in the first place.

 

[OKgrannie]

It has been established that she was not covert why do you people continue to push this lie? I've already went over the newsweek B.S. story but I suppose I have to do it again:

Then there's this:

Umm the investigation was to find out if a covert agent's identity had been leaked and by whome and guess what she wasn't covert her identity was only "classified" which is why nobody has been charged with that crime.

The CIA has 2 types of employees: OVERT and COVERT. Valerie Plame was NOT overt.

Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times - Was She Covert? More on Valerie Plame

"The relevant section of the law relevant to the Libby investigation states:

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
So what is a "covert agent"? Here's what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act states:
(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

There are two types of people who work at CIA. First are the "overt" employees. These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee. Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged. Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee. At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA. Zippo!

The remaining category of employee is covert. Covert employees include people who work under "official cover" and people who work under "non-official cover". A former CIA officer, Tom Gilligan, discussed both types of cover in his book CIA Life: 10,000 Days With the Agency. Official cover means the employee can say that he or she works for the United States Government, e.g. State Department, but at no time do you admit publicly that you work for the CIA. You get the added benefit of carrying an official or diplomatic passport. If you get caught overseas engaged in intelligence activity it means you have diplomatic immunity and the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

Non official cover or NOC also is covert but is more sensitive (and dangerous). A NOC does not work for the U.S. Government. A NOC does not have an official or diplomatic passport. A NOC works for a business or organization with no tie to the U.S. Government. If you are caught overseas while conducting espionage activities as a NOC you are screwed. You do not get a jail out of free card. You remain in jail or may be executed.

Now I will write this in big block letters: VALERIE PLAME WAS STILL UNDER NON OFFICIAL COVER WHEN NOVAK PUBLISHED HER NAME. "

 

[Just Me 2]

Not to take credit, this is simon's source


The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert
Newsweek
Feb. 13, 2006 issue...special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

No I don't mean what the prosecutor thinks I would like to hear it from the CIA or FBI or whoever makes the call she is considered a covert agent.

 

[Hoot]

It doesn't matter whether we believe Libby should get a pardon. He is now a convicted felon. His life is ruined... he has fallen from a prestigious 6 figure job as a noted attorney, an attorney who will surely be disbarred, with no real hope of getting his license back.

The appeal process will be denied, but will take a good 6-9 months, which still leaves Libby at least a year in prison.

Bush will not risk a pardon before the November, 2008 elections, because the fallout against republicans will hurt them at the polls.

Libby will be pardoned by Bush, on Bush's last day in office, putting a nice finale and an ending exclamation point, to a criminal administration that took us into a needless war.