another Bush appointee going to prison

[Care4all]

oh, and please don't expect my answers to be immediate. I am off and on all day long, but mostly offline.

 

[CockySOB]

oh, and please don't expect my answers to be immediate. I am off and on all day long, but mostly offline.

No problem, and apology for the mis-spelling accepted. I'm just too used to having pea-brained pissants resort to such crap when their arguments begin to fail. I too, apologize for jumping to the conclusion without having waited for the facts to come out.

HEY! whaddayaknow? That's another prime example of why YOU should go reading anything into Libby's conviction which isn't there. Plame was never determined to have been covert under the law and as such no charges COULD be filed based on a violation of the IIPA or related statutes. What is interesting is that if there WAS a finding of fact that Plame was indeed covert per the law, then Libby could have been charged with conspiracy. However, no conspiracy charges were ever filed against him which indicates that the government probably KNEW she was not covert per the law and thus the substantive crime which was being investigated was probably determined to never have occurred.

You can recite what you want, because unless you are citing the US Constitution, the US Codes or relevant case law, your statement/opinion holds little to no weight. If you would simply say that it is your opinion that Plame was covert per the law and not try to state it as fact, we'd be fine.

 

[Care4all]

No problem, and apology for the mis-spelling accepted. I'm just too used to having pea-brained pissants resort to such crap when their arguments begin to fail. I too, apologize for jumping to the conclusion without having waited for the facts to come out.

HEY! whaddayaknow? That's another prime example of why YOU should go reading anything into Libby's conviction which isn't there. Plame was never determined to have been covert under the law and as such no charges COULD be filed based on a violation of the IIPA or related statutes. What is interesting is that if there WAS a finding of fact that Plame was indeed covert per the law, then Libby could have been charged with conspiracy. However, no conspiracy charges were ever filed against him which indicates that the government probably KNEW she was not covert per the law and thus the substantive crime which was being investigated was probably determined to never have occurred.

You can recite what you want, because unless you are citing the US Constitution, the US Codes or relevant case law, your statement/opinion holds little to no weight. If you would simply say that it is your opinion that Plame was covert per the law and not try to state it as fact, we'd be fine.

oh no, i could care less whether she was ''covert status'' per the us code that protects foreign agents or whether she wasn't protected under this particular us code, because...

if she weren't protected under this code, she was probably protected under other laws regarding the handling of classified information and classified status, according to the oversight hearing, i believe it was executive order 12958.

but even that doesn't matter... on the whole.

What matters is what and how the vice president decide to retalliate against someone who disagreed with his assessment or his supposed assessment....which was to attack his wife, a 20 year, dedicated, government employee, who more than likely, was a NOC, for the CIA in the past and a very important player in the very classified dept that she worked in.

Cheney went ''lower'' than even I would have predicted for him....let me say, that i believe he was looking UPWARDS at the earthworms, on this one. All to justify his false claim and ascertion about Saddam acquiring yellowcake from Niger.

and as i have stated before, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Armitage et al, at best, sloppily handled classified and secret information that could have hurt us in our intelligence gathering ability, and hurt other reliable sources of ours.

Oh, and apology accepted!

care

 

[Gunny]

The bottom line: Did Libby ever lie to a jury or judge about anything at all?

If so, then he should be punished. Enough said.

Which is irrelevant to that which I responded. I sure hope I never have to go to court if what Libby did was lying .... not having perfect recall and using inconsistencies to support that accusation is bullshit.

 

[Gunny]

oh no, i could care less whether she was ''covert status'' per the us code that protects foreign agents or whether she wasn't protected under this particular us code, because...

if she weren't protected under this code, she was probably protected under other laws regarding the handling of classified information and classified status, according to the oversight hearing, i believe it was executive order 12958.

Speculation.

but even that doesn't matter... on the whole.

What matters is what and how the vice president decide to retalliate against someone who disagreed with his assessment or his supposed assessment....which was to attack his wife, a 20 year, dedicated, government employee, who more than likely, was a NOC, for the CIA in the past and a very important player in the very classified dept that she worked in.

Cheney went ''lower'' than even I would have predicted for him....let me say, that i believe he was looking UPWARDS at the earthworms, on this one. All to justify his false claim and ascertion about Saddam acquiring yellowcake from Niger.

and as i have stated before, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Armitage et al, at best, sloppily handled classified and secret information that could have hurt us in our intelligence gathering ability, and hurt other reliable sources of ours.

Oh, and apology accepted!

care

It appears that "what matters" is that no matter how you have to twist it, you are determined to stick to your story regardless the facts.

And yes, the law DOES matter.

 

[mattskramer]

Which is irrelevant to that which I responded. I sure hope I never have to go to court if what Libby did was lying .... not having perfect recall and using inconsistencies to support that accusation is bullshit.

If you don’t know or don’t remember, then say, “I don’t know” or say “I don’t remember”. If you do know the answer, then answer the question. I don’t think that this could be any simpler.

 

[Care4all]

It appears that "what matters" is that no matter how you have to twist it, you are determined to stick to your story regardless the facts.

And yes, the law DOES matter.

yes, i am sticking to what i believe, THROUGH ALL the facts available that i have read, and through the hours of research i have spent analizing the actual evidence admitted in to the trial, on this issue.

just as i can freely say, through the hours of watching the OJ trial, that he was guilty of murdering his wife and ron goldman, regardless of the final not guilty verdict he did receive by the jury.

care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What part of " Where a classification appears on a document has nothing to do with whats next to" do you NOT unberstand.

One can handle all kinds of CLASSIFIED information and not be covert or protected in any manner from someone saying they handle the material.

BUT thats not even the point. Libby was NEVER charged with telling ANYONE Plume was Covert. Nor of telling them she handled classified information. If there were evidence of that why wasn't he charged?

You keep insisting Cheney is a traitor with absolutely NO evidence. You are aware that by the Constitution one can not be tried for treason without a minimum of 2 witnesses that SAW or heard the crime.

And last i checked telling someone that someone works for the CIA is only a crime under VERY specific circumstances. NO CHARGE was made those circumstances were EVER met.

Further it is ILLEGAL to base an investigation on entrapping someone with perjury charges. The obstruction charges are ludicrous on their face. THERE is NO evidence that Libby was protecting Cheney. If such evidence existed then CHENY would have been charged with something.

The prosecutor convinced a Jury of 12 people that something happened that he had no proof of. The Judge aided and abetted this miscarraige of Justice.

In the end all you have is the prosecutor claiming " he lied because he was protecting so and so" and with NOT one shred of tangable evidence the claim is true. Other then public opinion. This lawyer needed Libby to roll and Libby did not, so he spent two years arranging a perjury charge and then to not get in trouble because that is ILLEGAL he claimed Libby was Obstructing his investigation.

Lets think about that for a moment. The Investigation was whether or not a Covert agent had been disclosed. YET NO ONE was ever charged with that, NO effort was made to even legally establish she was or was not Covert. YOU have repeated time and again Libby told people she WAS COVERT. BACK it up.

How does one "cover" for someone and not have committed the underlying crime to begin with? Think about that. If Cheney told Libby to out Plume and Libby did not ever get charged with doing that what in the hell was he obstructing? The entire purpose of questioning him was to find out if he outed her, a crime NO ONE has been charged with. If he lied about that and a JURY agreed he lied, WHY wasn't he charged with outing Plume? What did he need to lie about if he NEVER outed her? How can he testify against his boss telling him to out her if it NEVER happened?

Ever hear of occums razor? No evidence to charge or convict him of the crime the investigation was about, but we are to believe he lied , rather than made mistakes over 2 years about a NON event. Pure political theater.

 

[CockySOB]

oh no, i could care less whether she was ''covert status'' per the us code that protects foreign agents or whether she wasn't protected under this particular us code, because...

if she weren't protected under this code, she was probably protected under other laws regarding the handling of classified information and classified status, according to the oversight hearing, i believe it was executive order 12958.

but even that doesn't matter... on the whole.

What matters is what and how the vice president decide to retalliate against someone who disagreed with his assessment or his supposed assessment....which was to attack his wife, a 20 year, dedicated, government employee, who more than likely, was a NOC, for the CIA in the past and a very important player in the very classified dept that she worked in.

Cheney went ''lower'' than even I would have predicted for him....let me say, that i believe he was looking UPWARDS at the earthworms, on this one. All to justify his false claim and ascertion about Saddam acquiring yellowcake from Niger.

and as i have stated before, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Armitage et al, at best, sloppily handled classified and secret information that could have hurt us in our intelligence gathering ability, and hurt other reliable sources of ours.

Oh, and apology accepted!

care

So you don't care about the rule of law at all, huh? Nice. Makes it so much easier on me because I can dismiss your posts now as being irrelevant, emotional and sensational crap - and I don't have to feel at all bad thinking that you might actually be trying to be rational. Have a nice day.

 

[CockySOB]

yes, i am sticking to what i believe, THROUGH ALL the facts available that i have read, and through the hours of research i have spent analizing the actual evidence admitted in to the trial, on this issue.

just as i can freely say, through the hours of watching the OJ trial, that he was guilty of murdering his wife and ron goldman, regardless of the final not guilty verdict he did receive by the jury.

care

I sincerely hope you are never, EVER placed onto a jury. People who think like you do are a HUGE part of the problem with American society today.

 

[CockySOB]

If you don’t know or don’t remember, then say, “I don’t know” or say “I don’t remember”. If you do know the answer, then answer the question. I don’t think that this could be any simpler.

Yup. And don't be afraid to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights. Libby's actions more accurately reflect someone who actually DID misremember more than someone who was trying to hide something. Had Libby been intent on hiding something, he could have simply said, "I don't know," or "On advice of my attorney, I am invoking my Fifth Amendment right."

 

[Care4all]

What part of " Where a classification appears on a document has nothing to do with whats next to" do you NOT unberstand.

WHAT part of ''SECRET'' marked next to valerie plame wilson's name ON this already CLASSIFIED document, do YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

One can handle all kinds of CLASSIFIED information and not be covert or protected in any manner from someone saying they handle the material.

Again, what part of the word SECRET do you not understand, placed next to valerie plame's name on a classified document? The entire document was classified and Valerie Plame was identified, under usa classified procedure, as SECRET, which means even extra sensitivity should be taken.

BUT thats not even the point. Libby was NEVER charged with telling ANYONE Plume was Covert. Nor of telling them she handled classified information. If there were evidence of that why wasn't he charged?

what are you talking about? what is this bullshit about in bold? HER IDENTITY and who she worked for, was CLASSIFIED UNDERCOVER, "SECRET" as noted on the classified document, wtf is this crap about VPlame just ''handling'' classified information, is this the next lie from the right's spin machine???

it's true that libby was never charged with outing v plame, but it is also true that he lied, over and over and over and over again regarding his actions in the outing of valerie plame's official investigation. And his lies were not ''simple'' mistakes, they were intentional lies to cover up his own actions (and the vp's actions) in the outing of valerie plame's name and position within the CIA, to the press, BEFORE the Novak article was in print.

I don't know why fitzgerald did not pursue this further other than what he said, Libby prevented him from getting to the bottom of the leak.

I also believe, based on the oversight hearing, that valerie plame, and what she was doing undercover in her last days of employment, are too sensitive to continue. Fitgerald made note of the sensitivity, and so did waxman with general hayden's declassified vetting of her status.

in addition to this, the jury and the prosecutors felt or said there was a dark cloud hanging over the vp's head.

if it was a democratic special investigator at the level of partisanship as kenneth star, instead of Fitgerald, you can bet he would have gone for the vp's throat.

libby and rove et al were following orders...the paper trail to this comment of mine is in the transcript and discovery evidence for the trial. READ IT!

You keep insisting Cheney is a traitor with absolutely NO evidence. You are aware that by the Constitution one can not be tried for treason without a minimum of 2 witnesses that SAW or heard the crime.

FOR THE LAST TIME, i have not insisted that Cheney is a traitor.

I quoted president bush 1 on his view of those that leak classified agent's out.

And last i checked telling someone that someone works for the CIA is only a crime under VERY specific circumstances. NO CHARGE was made those circumstances were EVER met.

READ the TRIAL TRANSCRIPT and the charges against libby, the indictment statement grasshopper.

Further it is ILLEGAL to base an investigation on entrapping someone with perjury charges. The obstruction charges are ludicrous on their face. THERE is NO evidence that Libby was protecting Cheney. If such evidence existed then CHENY would have been charged with something.

you don't know what you are talking about ret sgt, READ the link for the libby trial i had provided you from the national archives.

as far as the obstruction charges, it was not entrapment, there does not have to be an underlying charge, in order to charge someone with obstruction of justice? if there were this criteria then martha stuart would not have been charged and convicted with obstruction of justice and not one Watergate conspirators would have been charged and convicted on the ''coverup'' alone.

Cheney has made claims that he declassified the ''document'', or had permission from the president to declassify the document.... if he did, then he did not follow declassification protocol to do such!

The prosecutor convinced a Jury of 12 people that something happened that he had no proof of. The Judge aided and abetted this miscarraige of Justice.

Dear God, where do you get this crap from?

I have asked you this before and so far, no answer:

do YOU KNOW the specific lies that libby told the fbi investigators and grand jury under oath?

PLEASE, by all means, tell me, what Libby said, what were his lies that he was convicted for...?. (hint: u can find this in the trial transcripts)

when you have this information, it will clear up your misconceptions.

oh, and the prosecution had PLENTY OF PROOF that Libby lied under oath, and the jury thought beyond a reasonable doubt, that Libby was guilty of perjury, lying to fbi investigators, investigating valerie plame's outing and he obstructed the investigation in to the outing... he was found GUILTY.

In the end all you have is the prosecutor claiming " he lied because he was protecting so and so" and with NOT one shred of tangable evidence the claim is true. Other then public opinion. This lawyer needed Libby to roll and Libby did not, so he spent two years arranging a perjury charge and then to not get in trouble because that is ILLEGAL he claimed Libby was Obstructing his investigation.

AGAIN, read the trial transcripts, your confusion would become clearer on this.

Lets think about that for a moment. The Investigation was whether or not a Covert agent had been disclosed. YET NO ONE was ever charged with that, NO effort was made to even legally establish she was or was not Covert. YOU have repeated time and again Libby told people she WAS COVERT. BACK it up.

fitzgerald, with the fbi investigators, already established that she was a covert, classified undercover officer, for the CIA.

read the trial transcripts and the indictment.

How does one "cover" for someone and not have committed the underlying crime to begin with? Think about that. If Cheney told Libby to out Plume and Libby did not ever get charged with doing that what in the hell was he obstructing? The entire purpose of questioning him was to find out if he outed her, a crime NO ONE has been charged with. If he lied about that and a JURY agreed he lied, WHY wasn't he charged with outing Plume? What did he need to lie about if he NEVER outed her? How can he testify against his boss telling him to out her if it NEVER happened?


you can not lie under oath in an investigation or any other time. It is against the law, ret sgt. It can prevent the truth from being discovered and could most certainly obstruct justice.

read the indictment of libby by fitgerald, he said it best and explained why it is so important to our justice system to tell the truth under oath.

Ever hear of occums razor? No evidence to charge or convict him of the crime the investigation was about, but we are to believe he lied , rather than made mistakes over 2 years about a NON event. Pure political theater.

no, i've never heard of it?

he was interviewed less than 5 months from the outing of plame. are you telling me that he made up all of these lies about something that happened 5 months ago because his memory was shot? in one of the highest administrative positions there is, the right hand man to the vp, and he can't remember that he met near every day for a month straight with the vp, discussing the wilson case and their planned propaganda comeback? (which was also produced as evidence in the trial)

He made up a completely bogus story on how he learned about valerie plame ret sgt??? when there is evidence that he learned of her identity through cheney and through cheney's inqyuires regarding wilson from the state dept, armitage was the point man. This was produced evidence at the trial.


care

 

[Care4all]

So you don't care about the rule of law at all, huh? Nice. Makes it so much easier on me because I can dismiss your posts now as being irrelevant, emotional and sensational crap - and I don't have to feel at all bad thinking that you might actually be trying to be rational. Have a nice day.

i DO care about the rule of law, and our justice system being just.

 

[Care4all]

I sincerely hope you are never, EVER placed onto a jury. People who think like you do are a HUGE part of the problem with American society today.

what? if i were on oj's jury, he would have been found guilty and justice would have been served! i wouldn't call that a ''problem'' at all!!!

 

[Gunny]

yes, i am sticking to what i believe, THROUGH ALL the facts available that i have read, and through the hours of research i have spent analizing the actual evidence admitted in to the trial, on this issue.

just as i can freely say, through the hours of watching the OJ trial, that he was guilty of murdering his wife and ron goldman, regardless of the final not guilty verdict he did receive by the jury.

care

I'm with Cocky. I hope no one ever selects YOU for jury duty. There's NOTHING objective about you, nor your argument. Because had you read as much as you claim, and examined all the facts, you'd know that Plame was about as undercover as I am; therefore, everything that followed moot.

And you don't KNOW OJ killed his wife and her boyfriend. You merely assume they did.

 

[Care4all]

Which is irrelevant to that which I responded. I sure hope I never have to go to court if what Libby did was lying .... not having perfect recall and using inconsistencies to support that accusation is bullshit.

WHAT libby did was lie under oath, to investigators and a grand jury in the crminal investigation for the outing of a CIA agent that was classified SECRET/ undercover.

 

[Care4all]

I'm with Cocky. I hope no one ever selects YOU for jury duty. There's NOTHING objective about you, nor your argument. Because had you read as much as you claim, and examined all the facts, you'd know that Plame was about as undercover as I am; therefore, everything that followed moot.

And you don't KNOW OJ killed his wife and her boyfriend. You merely assume they did.

i was a jurist not too long ago, i found the guy not guilty. it was fun and very interesting being part of a jury and a trial!

 

[Gunny]

WHAT libby did was lie under oath, to investigators and a grand jury in the crminal investigation for the outing of a CIA agent that was classified SECRET/ undercover.

Again, there is no evidence he outted anyone. That Plame was undercover is based on one person's testimony, not corroborated by law.

What Libby is "guilty" of is not having perfect recall.

You are wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Care you have no intention of backing up your claim I see. Still waiting for the evidence that Libby told ANYONE she was Covert. Still waiting for one shrd of evidence Cheney is a traitor.

And your are absolutely wrong on how documents are marked. Further your wrong on the assumption that because some one handles classified material that somehow makes their identity classified also.

You insist Libby outed her when in fact anyone that called CIA headquarters was told by the switch board she worked there.

 

[CockySOB]

i was a jurist not too long ago, i found the guy not guilty. it was fun and very interesting being part of a jury and a trial!

Now I have to wonder if the guy was guilty and he just made the better emotional argument which swayed your vote. Your objectivity is obviously out-to-lunch, which means that the decisions you make can be questioned. This isn't the say you *couldn't* come to the right conclusion, but I find it unlikely based on what you've shown so far.