• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

For those of you who think that the investigation is over...

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
think again.

All the republicans/conservatives are arguing that Fitzgerald was unable to find a violation of the statute. If you read the transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, you would understand that he was saying that he was unable to find a violation of the statute because Libby essentially threw sand in his eyes. Thus, it's possible that there has been a violation of the statute but that the special prosecutor has been unable to find such violation but for Libby's lying (and probably Rove's lying as well).

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make. . . .

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
Also, Rove is unquestionably NOT off the hook. Fitzgerald would not be continuing with the investigation if he had nothing on Rove.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important.
The prosecutor's choice of words was very interesting. As I understand it, the statute in question requires that

1) in order to be a covert CIA agent under this law, you have to be stationed overseas or to have been stationed overseas sometime in the past five years. Joe Wilson in his book acknowledges that his wife's last overseas assignment was in 1997, six years before this so-called leak took place. There's no crime here.

2) that you must have disclosed the CIA agent's identity maliciously and as part of your normal official government function. Further, You have to have learned it through your government functions, and you have to have disclosed it knowing that the government was taking affirmative measures to conceal it. Now Robert Novak, who first reported this, said later that he had asked the CIA if it was OK to disclose this name. He said the CIA said we'd rather not, but made only--and these are his words--"a very weak objection." So it doesn't sound like the government was taking affirmative measures.

So, was there a crime? Perhaps not. But as Martha Stewart can attest, sometimes just being involved in a criminal investigation can get you into trouble if you do the wrong thing. So yes, there may be conceivably indictments based on something that arose out of the investigation, even if there is no underlying crime.

Libby's alleged crimes all occurred after the investigation began. The charges against him are serious, but no one should lose sight of the bigger picture: The special prosecutor has apparently found no evidence that anyone was guilty of anything two years ago, back when Joe Wilson was calling for Karl Rove to be "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
THe statute states the following:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S. [shall be guilty of a crime]."

Therefore, a defendant must:

(1) have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;

(2) "intentionally disclose" the information;

(3) disclose it to one not authorized to receive classified information;

(4) know the information he is disclosing identifies the covert agent; and

(5) know that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.


Thre is no requirement that the name be leaked with malicious intent. I'm not saying that the statute was violated, but those of you who claim that because no indictment has been issued as of now that it means that the statute was not violated are putting the cart before the horse.

Libby's alleged crimes all occurred after the investigation began.
Huh? His perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice charges came after the crime. What does that have to do with whether the statute was violated at the time he was providing her name to reporters back in June/July 2003?
 

faminedynasty

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
706
Reaction score
224
Location
Sacramento California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems fairly obvious that this is an act of treason carried out directly by the Bush administration, and Libby is simply the first subbordinate to be thrown under the wheels of the investigation. But I'm sure that they all know how important loyalty is to Bush, and that if they mind what they say, they'll be well taken care of whatever may happen. Thus it's harder to get someone to admit the direct involvement of Cheney, Powell, Bush, etc. But Fitzgerald has a reputation as an agressive investigator, so let's see how far he can take it.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
think again.

All the republicans/conservatives are arguing that Fitzgerald was unable to find a violation of the statute. If you read the transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, you would understand that he was saying that he was unable to find a violation of the statute because Libby essentially threw sand in his eyes. Thus, it's possible that there has been a violation of the statute but that the special prosecutor has been unable to find such violation but for Libby's lying (and probably Rove's lying as well).

Also, Rove is unquestionably NOT off the hook. Fitzgerald would not be continuing with the investigation if he had nothing on Rove.
His baseball analogy was the weakest part of his presentation and still makes no sense. Rove is NOT accused of perjury. Rove did NOT blind Fitzgerald. So is he cleared of outing her and why. If Fitzgerald had the evidence he would have indicted him.

Fitzgerald skipped ahead, the first thing he should have done is prove Plame was the batter at the plate and then prove that she actually got hit. THEN he could see who did it and it they did it intentionally. What he said instead was that since Libby seems to have lied about whom he heard about it from first (not a very important aspect to begin with) then the investigation can go nowhere. Libby's problems have nothing to do with Rove.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
His baseball analogy was the weakest part of his presentation and still makes no sense. Rove is NOT accused of perjury. Rove did NOT blind Fitzgerald. So is he cleared of outing her and why. If Fitzgerald had the evidence he would have indicted him.

Fitzgerald skipped ahead, the first thing he should have done is prove Plame was the batter at the plate and then prove that she actually got hit. THEN he could see who did it and it they did it intentionally. What he said instead was that since Libby seems to have lied about whom he heard about it from first (not a very important aspect to begin with) then the investigation can go nowhere. Libby's problems have nothing to do with Rove.
I will debunk this piece of delusional :spin: with one simple question.

If what you say is true, then why did Fitzgerald say that Rove was still under investigation?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
I will debunk this piece of delusional :spin: with one simple question.

If what you say is true, then why did Fitzgerald say that Rove was still under investigation?
I will debunk this piece of delusional :spin: with one simple question.
Quote Fitzgerald saying any such thing.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
His baseball analogy was the weakest part of his presentation and still makes no sense.
LOL I agree. I thought, "WTF?"

Rove is NOT accused of perjury. Rove did NOT blind Fitzgerald. So is he cleared of outing her and why. If Fitzgerald had the evidence he would have indicted him.
Rove has not been accused of perjury. Whether he will in the future be accused of perjury remains to be seen. How you can say he has been cleared is beyond me when Fitzgerald, under no uncertain terms, stated Rove was still being investigated.

Fitzgerald skipped ahead, the first thing he should have done is prove Plame was the batter at the plate and then prove that she actually got hit. THEN he could see who did it and it they did it intentionally. What he said instead was that since Libby seems to have lied about whom he heard about it from first (not a very important aspect to begin with) then the investigation can go nowhere. Libby's problems have nothing to do with Rove.
Hmmm, Stinger, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Libby's lies prevented Fitzgerald from being able to determine whether the statute had been violated. He made ZERO conclusions as to Rove's actions/words and what kind of impact they have on this investigation.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It seems fairly obvious that this is an act of treason carried out directly by the Bush administration, and Libby is simply the first subbordinate to be thrown under the wheels of the investigation. But I'm sure that they all know how important loyalty is to Bush, and that if they mind what they say, they'll be well taken care of whatever may happen. Thus it's harder to get someone to admit the direct involvement of Cheney, Powell, Bush, etc. But Fitzgerald has a reputation as an agressive investigator, so let's see how far he can take it.
I agree with you but he'll have a hell of a time proving it. The cons can have one thing going for them its that Bush isn't that stupid. He was smart enough not to get himself involved directly but who knows? Anything can happen.

I actually said a while back that I thought personaly that Karl Rove was going to allow someone else to take the blame. It seems like my prediction was correct because Libby is going to jail.
 

mike49

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just to throw an idea in here:

How many Republicans are going to be on this Jury?

If I was on the jury I would believe Libby. I would want to believe Libby. Therefore I would believe Libby.

Faulty memory...case closed.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Rove has not been accused of perjury. Whether he will in the future be accused of perjury remains to be seen. How you can say he has been cleared is beyond me when Fitzgerald, under no uncertain terms, stated Rove was still being investigated.
Investigators don't "clear" people. If Fitzgerald had the evidence and the grand jury had voted to indict then there would have been an indictment. There was no indictment. My point being that contrary to other statements here under no uncertain terms did Fitzgerald state that Rove was still under investigation.


Hmmm, Stinger, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Libby's lies prevented Fitzgerald from being able to determine whether the statute had been violated.
And that is somewhat bogus. There are other ways to find out if he knew her status than just what he said. What did the people whom testified they told him about Plame say. But maybe I didn't make myself clear more important than what did Libby know was whether or not Plame came under the law about covert status in the first place. If a prosecutor is going to investigate a shooting isn't it best to first determine if someone got shot?

He made ZERO conclusions as to Rove's actions/words and what kind of impact they have on this investigation.
You have no basis for that statement. He made ZERO statement because he would only comment on illegalities and none were mentioned vis-a-vis Rove. We can conclude that the grand jury did not indict, therefore the evidence if any that Fitzgerald presented was not convincing to the grand jury. Fitzgerald stated that he had little left to wrap up, I would not think he would characterize a still pending indictment against Rove as a "little" matter.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
When this goes to trial Fitzgerald will get discovery and Libby may want to make a plea bargain to avoid 30 years of prison time.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
I actually said a while back that I thought personaly that Karl Rove was going to allow someone else to take the blame. It seems like my prediction was correct because Libby is going to jail.
ROFL that is one of the most idiodic statments I have heard. Why on earth would Libby "take the blame" for Rove and ruin his career?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mike49 said:
Just to throw an idea in here:

How many Republicans are going to be on this Jury?

If I was on the jury I would believe Libby. I would want to believe Libby. Therefore I would believe Libby.

Faulty memory...case closed.
Else a matter of jury nolifications since Libby was merely making sure the American people knew the truth about the fraud the Wilson's tried to play on the country. What he did was actually the right thing to do, why he lied, if he lied about it, is the mystery.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
When this goes to trial Fitzgerald will get discovery and Libby may want to make a plea bargain to avoid 30 years of prison time.

Oh geez. Discovery comes to the defendent not to the prosecutor. Fitzgerald has had full supena power all along and has gotten everything he asked for. Now LIBBY gets discovery, not the other way around.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the Republicans deserve credit for not demonizing the prosecuter like the Dems done with Judge Ken Star in the Clinton admin. It seems on the surface everything is on the up and up with this investigation except for one thing- Since it's obvious that initially there was not a crime committed because the CIA agent was not an active covert spy, why wasn't this investigation over days after it started? I think it is a fishing expedition with politics involved.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If Fitzgerald had a good case it wouldn't have taken him two years to get an indictment. During the process Libby probably did make conflicting statements. What happened to the "It's no big deal to lie under oath" Clinton apologists? It looks like you have Libby convicted and in jail already.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,397
Reaction score
1,916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Stinger said:
If a prosecutor is going to investigate a shooting isn't it best to first determine if someone got shot?
Using your analogy, Valerie Plame got shot. The only question is who pulled the trigger. Libby claims he didn't have a gun, but he did. It's not that he had a gun, but the fact he lied (or misspoke) about having a gun makes him a suspect in the shooting, in my view. It's quite possible he didn't mean to "lie", but Plame's identity was still leaked to the press by someone. Even if Libby is innocent, someone is not!

Stinger said:
I think the Republicans deserve credit for not demonizing the prosecuter like the Dems done with Judge Ken Star in the Clinton admin.
That could be because the Republicans are the ones who put Fitzgerald on the job.

Stinger said:
Since it's obvious that initially there was not a crime committed because the CIA agent was not an active covert spy, why wasn't this investigation over days after it started?
A CIA agent doesn't have to be actively working as a covert spy for it to be a crime to reveal their identity. I don't know of any official statement that implies revealing Plame's identity was not a crime, so I'm pretty sure a crime was committed.

Stinger said:
If Fitzgerald had a good case it wouldn't have taken him two years to get an indictment
You may be right about that. But you have to admit that the statements Libby is accused of lying about directly apply to the origional investigation. Libby's statements may have hindered the investigation and prevented Fitzgerald from getting an indictment on leaking classified info.

Stinger said:
During the process Libby probably did make conflicting statements. What happened to the "It's no big deal to lie under oath" Clinton apologists?
Dunno, but they have no concept of justice if they're being hypocritical here.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
Oh geez. Discovery comes to the defendent not to the prosecutor. Fitzgerald has had full supena power all along and has gotten everything he asked for. Now LIBBY gets discovery, not the other way around.
Fitzgerald only had subpoena. Now that it's going to trial he gets discovery and so does Libby.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
His perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice charges came after the crime
Crime? What crime? There hasn't even been an indictment as yet on the 'outing' allegation. The continued description of Plame's identity as having been 'leaked' is popular but it remains unproven that 'leaked' is an appropriate description, much less indicative of an illegal act. Yes, the press jumped all over it - blood, bullets and intrigue at the highest levels sell papers and command viewers.

"His perjury, false statements, and obstruction" ...If there was perjury, false statements and obstruction. So far, its still indictments, not proven. No one has been proven guilty of anything yet.

Additional indictments may yet be returned. Arraignments and trials are yet to take place. But as of this moment, nobody is guilty of anything. We can suspect and speculate all we want; partisans on both sides of the aisle can wish and hope for whatever their desired outcome might be, but right here, right now, it is all speculation.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Fitzgerald only had subpoena. Now that it's going to trial he gets discovery and so does Libby.
Nope, this is not a civil action between two parties. Fitzgerald gets nothing more than he already had, Libby gets to see what evidence Fitzgerald has under a discovery motion but he does not have to turn over his evidence to Fitzgerald although it would be a good idea to do so if it exoneriates him and proves a trial would be worthless.

So what evidence do you think Libby has that Fitzgerald doesn't already have?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Using your analogy, Valerie Plame got shot.
That's the point we don't. We don't know if she came under the statute concerning disclosuer of "covert" operatives.

The only question is who pulled the trigger.
Nope the question is did she get shot.

It's quite possible he didn't mean to "lie", but Plame's identity was still leaked to the press by someone. Even if Libby is innocent, someone is not!
It is still not proven that her employment at the CIA was a secret. The beans had already been spilled by the CIA when the "company" she worked for was outed as a CIA cover. Then her name was released by accident to the Russians and the Cubans, so it was not somehthing that a good reporter couldn't have found out without Libby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
I think the Republicans deserve credit for not demonizing the prosecuter like the Dems done with Judge Ken Star in the Clinton admin.

That could be because the Republicans are the ones who put Fitzgerald on the job.
No more so than the Democrats put Starr on a OIC. But the still deserve credit. The smear job the Clintons and the Dems did on Starr was disgraceful.



A CIA agent doesn't have to be actively working as a covert spy for it to be a crime to reveal their identity.
You are correct, it has to be within the last 5 years and a host of other criteria which obviously was not met in this case.

I don't know of any official statement that implies revealing Plame's identity was not a crime, so I'm pretty sure a crime was committed.
That would be proving a negative, the burden is on you to prove it was a crime.

You may be right about that. But you have to admit that the statements Libby is accused of lying about directly apply to the origional investigation.
Nope, not if she wasn't a covert operative. Who he learned it from is moot.

Libby's statements may have hindered the investigation and prevented Fitzgerald from getting an indictment on leaking classified info.
The reporters refusing to testify hindered the investigation. But again disclosing her name has NOT been proven a crime. It had already been disclosed. She had not worked covert in the last 6 years. Marrying a diplomat pretty much wipes out any covert career. Her status at the CIA might have been classified but her status was not disclosed by Libby or anyone as far as the testimony goes.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Wilson lied and Libby was getting the truth out to the American people so they could make an informed decission about what he was saying. What do you believe the White House should have done when they heard the lies he was telling, just let him go on about it?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Investigators don't "clear" people. If Fitzgerald had the evidence and the grand jury had voted to indict then there would have been an indictment. There was no indictment. My point being that contrary to other statements here under no uncertain terms did Fitzgerald state that Rove was still under investigation.
Rove's lawyer said he was told by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office that investigators had "made no decision about whether or not to bring charges" and would continue their probe into Rove's conduct.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/rove.leak.ap/


Reports have indicated that Fitzgerald would keep Rove under investigation. Sources close to Rove told FOX News that Fitzgerald decided not to prosecute Rove because Rove attorney Bob Luskin earlier this week offered information and an explanation that satisfied Fitzgerald enough to hold off on an indictment. While details were not available about the conversation, sources said Fitzgerald told Luskin he would continue to look into the matter with full consideration of Luskin's additional information and explanation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173774,00.html

And that is somewhat bogus. There are other ways to find out if he knew her status than just what he said. What did the people whom testified they told him about Plame say. But maybe I didn't make myself clear more important than what did Libby know was whether or not Plame came under the law about covert status in the first place. If a prosecutor is going to investigate a shooting isn't it best to first determine if someone got shot?
I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

You have no basis for that statement. He made ZERO statement because he would only comment on illegalities and none were mentioned vis-a-vis Rove. We can conclude that the grand jury did not indict, therefore the evidence if any that Fitzgerald presented was not convincing to the grand jury. Fitzgerald stated that he had little left to wrap up, I would not think he would characterize a still pending indictment against Rove as a "little" matter.
We can conclude that? If the grand jury did not indict, then the investigation as to Rove would have been concluded. It's that simple. Fitzgerald did not seek to indict Rove last week. I agree that he said that most of the investigation was completed. That doesn't mean that Rove is off the hook.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Oh geez. Discovery comes to the defendent not to the prosecutor. Fitzgerald has had full supena power all along and has gotten everything he asked for. Now LIBBY gets discovery, not the other way around.
What? Stinger, you have no idea what you are talking about. Now, it may be that Fitzgerald has all the evidence he needs, but discovery is for BOTH parties--it is NEVER one-sided. Where did you come up with that BS?

http://www.utcourts.gov/howto/courtproc.htm

Criminal Case Procedure Prior to Trial

Pre-Trial Motions: Before a trial begins, the prosecution and defense may file any number of motions with the court. A motion is a formal request to a judge to issue an order. These may include motions to suppress a defendant's prior convictions, motions to suppress evidence, or requests for discovery. If a defendant would like to file a motion, it must be done five days before the trial and must be in writing. All motions should be heard and decided by the judge before a trial can proceed.
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
mike49 said:
Just to throw an idea in here:

How many Republicans are going to be on this Jury?

If I was on the jury I would believe Libby. I would want to believe Libby. Therefore I would believe Libby.

Faulty memory...case closed.
Wow. I am so glad that without hearing all the evidence that you have already decided this case. LOL
 
Top Bottom