The Libby Trial: A Farce and An Outrage

[Adam's Apple]

A Farce and an Outrage
By Mona Charen
February 02, 2007


"As I was walking up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish he'd stay away."
(Hughes Mearns)

Mearns captures the spirit of Washington, D.C. We are in the midst of a criminal trial concerning the leaking of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame's name to the press. The man on trial did not do the leaking. The man who did the leaking is not on trial. The woman who is the subject of the fictional leak was probably not covert. The person who leaked her name did so in the course of gossip and almost certainly did not, as the law requires, "know that the government had taken affirmative measures to conceal" her identity (because if she wasn't covert, the government would have taken no such steps). Accordingly, there was no crime. And yet, a prosecutor presents evidence, a jury lobs questions and "Scooter" Libby may go to jail for 30 years.

This charade competes with the Duke "rape" case for prosecutorial misconduct, brazen defiance of common sense and unbelievable jeopardy to the innocent.


http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22500.html

 

[Bullypulpit]

Firstly, he's not on trial for "leaking".

<blockquote>I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted by federal grand jury Friday on charges related to the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name to the media.

Libby was indicted on <b>one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements</b>, court documents show.

- According to an Office of Special Counsel press release, "if convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties:Obstruction of justice -- 10 years in prison;
- Making false statements and perjury -- each 5 years.
- Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000."

That means the maximum penalties would be 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines. "The court would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed," the press release said.

Sources: ladefender.com, Ohio State Bar Association </blockquote>

And, a point Ms. Charen left out, it was the CIA that requested the Department of Justice look into the matter. At the time her name was leaked, Ms. Plame was working in the counter proliferation division, whose operatives are generally regarded as covert operatives, whether they are overseas or not. As a result of her "outing", the operation she was running under guise of Brewster Jennings & Associates, had to be rolled up. This operation was, incidentally directed tracking and halting illicit shipments of fissile materials which could be used to produce nuclear weapons. The lives of the intelligence assets she was running were endangered, if not forfeit. Our national security was compromised. The leak was an act of treason by any measure, and all involved should pay the price.

That the Vice President is now implicated in the effort to leak her name in an effort to discredit Joe Wilson does leave me with a delicious sense of <i>schadenfreude</i>.

 

[red states rule]

It is a farce of a trial. Libby gets his timeline of when he knew about this CIA paper pusher and he is on trial

Meanwhile we have Sandy Burgkler, who admits he stole and destroyed classified documents, and he is out walking around free

To libs this is justice "fair and balanced"

 

[Adam's Apple]

Firstly, he's not on trial for "leaking".

Yes, he is. This whole matter came into being because of the accusation that someone in Bush's administration had "leaked" to Robert Novak the name of Valerie Plame, a "covert" CIA agent. In the first place, this accusation is laughable because Plame's cover was blown by Aldrich Ames at his trial many years ago; hence, everyone in Washington and those who worked for the MSM knew she worked for the CIA--so who was fooling who? It was a known fact that Joe Wilson was rabidly anti-administration, so it was ludicrous to believe that anyone from Cheney's office would send Wilson on a "fact-finding" mission to Niger.

Secondly, it was the liberals working in the CIA--of whom Plame was part and parcel--who were behind this "fishing expedition".

Libby was indicted on <b>one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements</b>, court documents show.

I would say that Sandy "Burglar" is a far better candidate than Libby for such charges as obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements in a case that has far more serious consequences in why we find ourselves in a WOT than the Libby case.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It is a farce of a trial. Libby gets his timeline of when he knew about this CIA paper pusher and he is on trial

Meanwhile we have Sandy Burgkler, who admits he stole and destroyed classified documents, and he is out walking around free

To libs this is justice "fair and balanced"

<blockquote>Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense."[14] Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.[15]</blockquote>

If Berger was guilty of anything more than a misdemeanor, why didn't the Bush Administration push for more serious charges? Had there been any basis for more serious charges, those charges would have been filed, and no plea on a misdeameanor charge would have been accepted.

And, there's the fact that THIS Department of Justice, states,

<blockquote>The Justice Department on Tuesday repeated its original position that no documents were withheld. Spokesman Bryan Sierra said the department ``has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents, and we stand by our investigation of this matter.'' <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6334264,00.html>The Guardian</a>, 01/10/07</blockquote>

Since you are unwilling to place responsibility for America's current straights where it belongs, squarely on the doorstep of Chimpy McCokespoon's presidency, you seek a convenient scapegoat in the form of "Goatboy" Clinton. Get over it, you loser.

 

[dilloduck]

<blockquote>Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense."[14] Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.[15]</blockquote>

If Berger was guilty of anything more than a misdemeanor, why didn't the Bush Administration push for more serious charges? Had there been any basis for more serious charges, those charges would have been filed, and no plea on a misdeameanor charge would have been accepted.

And, there's the fact that THIS Department of Justice, states,

<blockquote>The Justice Department on Tuesday repeated its original position that no documents were withheld. Spokesman Bryan Sierra said the department ``has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents, and we stand by our investigation of this matter.'' <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6334264,00.html>The Guardian</a>, 01/10/07</blockquote>

Since you are unwilling to place responsibility for America's current straights where it belongs, squarely on the doorstep of Chimpy McCokespoon's presidency, you seek a convenient scapegoat in the form of "Goatboy" Clinton. Get over it, you loser.

Now, 18 House Republicans, led by Rep. Thomas Davis of Virginia, want the Justice Department to conduct the polygraph test, which was part of Berger's plea deal that kept him out of prison, the Washington Times reported Wednesday.
"This may be the only way for anyone to know whether Berger denied the 9/11 commission and the public the complete account of the Clinton administration's actions or inactions during the lead-up to the terrorist attacks on the United States," the congressmen said in their letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said the cycle of justice was complete, and Berger had moved on.
"It's time for the new congressional minority to do the same," he said.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20070124-105918-2468r.htm

 

[red states rule]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html

Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?
By Ronald A. Cass

Some things cry out for explanation. Like finding $90,000 in marked bills in a Congressman's freezer. Or finding out that a blue-chip lawyer who held one of the most important jobs in the nation was willing to risk his career, his livelihood, and his liberty to steal, hide, and destroy classified documents.

We all have a pretty good idea what the money was doing in Representative William Jefferson's freezer. But the questions about President William Jefferson Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, just keep piling up.

It's time we got some answers.

According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?


**********

The report released by Rep. Tom Davis last week makes plain that right now we cannot answer those questions. We cannot say what information in fact was lost through Mr. Berger's actions.

At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.


**********

There are good reasons to protect sensitive communications within the government. Some discussions should be private if presidents are to have the best advice and the nation is to have the best decisions on sensitive matters. The President and top officials should be able to explore options and discuss threats - among themselves and with their key staff members - without fear that a remark taken out of context or poorly phrased will come back to haunt them.

Laws that endeavor to strike the balance between salutary confidentiality and beneficial public disclosure at times tilt too far to disclosure. In public debate, advantages of disclosure are often easier to explain than advantages of secrecy. That, in part, follows from the nature of secrets - if you don't reveal them, you can't explain fully why they should have stayed secret.

The Berger episode, however, strictly involves materials that are supposed to be turned over under the law, materials specifically covered by a presidential directive that authorized sharing the information with those investigating 9/11 intelligence-gathering and evaluation. Mr. Berger's willingness to risk everything to suppress the information goes well beyond ordinary concerns against excessive disclosure.

Bill Clinton obviously has great sensitivity to his place in history and to accusations that he did too little to respond to al-Qaeda, that he is to some degree responsible for failing to prevent 9/11's tragedy. That is why he and his lieutenants made reckless and baseless accusations against the current Bush administration, attempting to portray them as having dropped the baton handed off by ever-vigilant Clintonistas (who, according to John Ashcroft's testimony, withheld the MAAAR and its warnings about al-Qaeda's operations in the US from the Bush transition team).

But maybe there is more to the story. Maybe there is something far worse than we can imagine that is worth having his chief security aide risk his reputation, his career, and his liberty to cover up.


**********

Mr. Berger, the Clintons, and their allies do not want questions about this story asked or answered. Mr. Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, along with former Clinton officials, assured us that all of the material destroyed by Berger existed in other form and was made available to the 9/11 investigations, that nothing relevant to the Clinton Administration's response to al-Qaeda was withheld.

Of course, we also were assured that Monica had only imagined a relationship with Bill and that rumors to the contrary were, in Hillary's famous phrase, the work of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Politicians never like to admit mistakes. They see legitimate inquiries as politically inspired, which they often are. Changing the subject or shifting blame to others aren't tactics peculiar to the Clintons.

The Clintons, however, take the game of deny-deceive-and-distract to a new level. Their relentless personal attacks on Ken Starr were designed to undermine the credibility of information about Bill Clinton's perjury, to deflect attention from his own failings. Clinton's excessive reaction - complete with hyperbole, finger-wagging, and scolding - to a simple question from Fox News' Chris Wallace about his response to al-Qaeda is in the same vein. Something here touches a nerve.

That nerve is exposed in the Sandy Berger saga. This story at bottom is about the security of our nation, about what was - or was not - done to protect us from the most shocking and deadly attack on American citizens by foreign agents in our nation's history. This story is critical not only to understanding our past but also to securing our future. It can help us understand what it is reasonable to expect can be done to keep us and our loved ones safe from harm. It is, in short, as important a story as there is.


**********

It is a story the news media should be desperate to explore, not desperate to avoid.

They should want to know the full story, no matter what the implications are for the legacy of a president much loved by an overwhelmingly liberal media or what the risks are for a former First Lady whose future is tied to her husband's past. Those risks loom especially large before a field of potential Republican presidential candidates with strong reputations in security matters - like Rudy Giuliani, for example, whose courageous performance on 9/11 still resonates.

Those who wrap themselves so frequently in the mantra of the people's right to know should want to know the truth - all the time. Sadly, today's would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins look more like ostriches than hawks, showing no curiosity about what Sandy Berger was hiding. Had that been the attitude when Watergate first appeared as a minor news story, Richard Nixon would have served out his full second term. The rest, as they say, is history.

Mr. Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, served Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as Commissioner and Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission.

 

[Annie]

A contrary side to the Ignatius article:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0202200...libby_farce_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm

THE LIBBY FARCE

By JOHN PODHORETZ

February 2, 2007 -- NOBODY knows what is going to happen in the perjury trial of Scooter Libby, the one-time chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Every day, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's team presents evidence that Libby lied to a grand jury. Every day, Libby's defense effectively pokes holes in the prosecution's case.

Most news reports this week have highlighted the prosecution's successes. But the prosecutor must prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt" - and the Libby team has had evident success in casting all kinds of doubt on the testimony of Fitzgerald's witnesses. So things are far muddier in Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom than the reporters covering the trial are letting on.

This is easily seen if you read the observations of the most obsessive followers of the Libby case. They come in two varieties - left-wingers who'd be happy to see Libby face a firing squad and righties who'd now be happy to see Fitzgerald face a firing squad.

Web sites on both sides of the ideological divide provide moment-by-moment transcripts of the courtroom proceedings, and other sites give moment-by-moment analysis.

Reading these sites every day has a vertigo-inducing effect that probably resembles the suffering of those who have bipolar disorder.

Yesterday, the anti-Libby partisans were thrilled with the first bit of testimony by an FBI agent who interviewed Libby in 2003. "I'm reading and I'm not quite believing it," said one poster at the Fire Dog Lake site, "but yes, it does seem like Scooter is toast." Then Libby's lawyers rose to interview the agent - and the pro-Libby folks instantly rose from the depths of despair to the unshakable sense that their man would be acquitted.

It would be impossible in fewer than a thousand words to explain how Libby's lawyers made FBI interviewer Deborah Bond look bad, but they did.

And since she was the final witness of the week in the Libby case, one poster at the Just One Minute site crowed: "The jury leaves with the taste and smell of burned Feeb." ...

 

[Annie]

Lots on the trial, this is as good as place as any to start. Lots of links. You may wish to peruse this blog:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/no_mitchell_no_.html

February 08, 2007
No Mitchell No Peace

Jeralyn Merritt has copies of Fitzgerald's filing opposing the defense's effort to call Andrea Mitchell as a witness.

Shorter Fitzgerald: Since I never got around to asking Ms. Mitchell for her testimony under oath, it is not fair if the defense does.

Slightly Longer Fitzgerald: We don't need Ms. Mitchell's sworn testimony, since we can rely on her many public statements denying any involvement.

That is a pretty bold notion of jurisprudence, but it may represent a huge time-saver for police and prosecutors - just read the papers and if a person denies any involvement, well, case closed. Maybe in the day of Web 2.0, prosecutors can survey Facebook and YouTube to see if folks have posted denials there as well. "CSI-Miami" can become "CNN-Miami". Cool.

That should save all the tedium of swearing people in - gosh, it must be tiresome for poor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has no doubt had to sit through thousands of people raising their right hands.

And it would save on downtown parking, since folks won't have to come to court. It's all good!

Of course, there is the little matter of Libby's right to confront the witnesses against him. And Ms. Mitchell does work for Tim Russert, and Tim Russert has said it's "Impossible" that he knew about Ms. Plame, but Mitchell at one time said she did know about Ms. Plame, and the jury may want to assess Ms. Mitchell's denials for themselves - she was so timorous and evasive on Imus that folks listening nearly hurt themselves laughing, but perhaps this jury is made of sterner stuff...

 

[red states rule]

Maybe we will hear how Tim Russert did on the stand

 

[Annie]

Lots on the trial, this is as good as place as any to start. Lots of links. You may wish to peruse this blog:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/no_mitchell_no_.html

One felony dropped:

update:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/a_victory_of_so.html

February 09, 2007
"A Victory Of Sorts"

I love the smell of dropped felony counts in the morning. It smells like victory... of a sort.

Neil Lewis of the Times reports, sort of, on the latest in the Libby trial:

The Libby defense won a victory of sorts when Judge Reggie B. Walton agreed to exclude part of one of the five felony counts against Mr. Libby. But it remained unclear whether the change, which was not contested by the prosecutors, would matter in jury deliberations.​

Which count? Not clear from this, but our panel of experts is betting on 33 (c), related to Judy Miller. From the indictment:

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

...

c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;​

Apparently Fitzgerald failed (forgot?!?) to elicit relevant testimony on this point. Can someone give me a "Fitz!"?

 

[red states rule]

<blockquote>Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense."[14] Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.[15]</blockquote>

If Berger was guilty of anything more than a misdemeanor, why didn't the Bush Administration push for more serious charges? Had there been any basis for more serious charges, those charges would have been filed, and no plea on a misdeameanor charge would have been accepted.

And, there's the fact that THIS Department of Justice, states,

<blockquote>The Justice Department on Tuesday repeated its original position that no documents were withheld. Spokesman Bryan Sierra said the department ``has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents, and we stand by our investigation of this matter.'' <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6334264,00.html>The Guardian</a>, 01/10/07</blockquote>

Since you are unwilling to place responsibility for America's current straights where it belongs, squarely on the doorstep of Chimpy McCokespoon's presidency, you seek a convenient scapegoat in the form of "Goatboy" Clinton. Get over it, you loser.

LIBBY & THE LEAK
WHAT WE'VE LEARNED - AND HAVEN'T - AT THE BIZARRE TRIAL

By BYRON YORK
MILLER: Major memory problems.
February 11, 2007 -- THE judge in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of Lewis Libby is trying mightily to keep courtroom pro ceedings focused on the narrow question of whether Libby lied to a grand jury in the CIA leak case. But it's not working.

With each new witness, and each new document entered into evidence, we're learning more about the politics of the Valerie Plame scandal - it that's what it was - that exploded in the summer of 2003.

FIRST, we've learned that the accepted version of how it all started seems to be wrong. In that account, Vice President Dick Cheney got things going when he asked for information about possible Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Africa. After that request, CIA employee Valerie Plame suggested sending her husband to look into the question - and the agency indeed flew Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate.

But documents released at trial suggest the CIA was looking for someone to send to Niger before Cheney ever asked the question. It appears it all began with a report from the Defense Intelligence Agency raising the possibility that Niger had agreed to sell uranium to Iraq. The CIA, which was often at odds with DIA, wanted to knock down the report - and the trial documents indicate that Plame (Mrs. Wilson) volunteered her husband for the job the day before Cheney chimed in.

THE trial has also revealed that some of our premier political reporters and government officials have perfectly terribly memories. Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, testified that Libby first told her about Valerie Plame at a meeting in Washington on June 23, 2003. But on cross examination, we learned that Miller originally told the grand jury a different story.

Turns out she completely forgot about that meeting - one of the crucial events in the case against Libby - when she first testified, and only corrected her testimony after she found a shopping bag filled with notebooks under her desk at the Times. Looking through them, she found notes from the June 23 conversation and quickly changed her story.

"When you first appeared before the grand jury, you didn't remember that at all?" asked defense lawyer William Jeffress.

"Nothing about it," Miller answered.

Robert Grenier, a former top CIA official who told Libby about Valerie Plame, at first testified before the grand jury that he couldn't recall whether he had or not. Then, a year later, he remembered he had. At trial, he told skeptical defense lawyers that he felt his recollection "growing" over time.

"Your memory improves with time?" asked Libby lawyer William Jeffress.

"Not in all cases, no," Grenier allowed.

Even NBC's Tim Russert - the prosecution's star witness - had a few memory problems. He never wavered in his testimony that he did not tell Libby about Valerie Plame, as Libby contends - but Russert seemed a little lost when defense lawyers asked him about things he'd said on the "Imus" radio program and the "Today" show the morning Libby's indictment was announced.

Russert - who, it should be said, appears on TV several times a week - couldn't recall anything about those appearances.

"Do you deny that you went on the 'Today' show on the morning of Oct. 28?" asked defense attorney Ted Wells.

"I don't," Russert answered. "I just don't remember."

WE'RE also learning more about the so-called "con spiracy" to out Valerie Plame: There wasn't one.

Rather than a carefully-planned conspiracy, testimony in the trial has revealed a confused and disjointed White House reaction to Joseph Wilson's broadside against the Bush administration.

When Wilson began taking very public shots at the administration's case for war - first anonymously, then by name in a Times op-ed and an appearance on "Meet the Press" - the first reaction in the vice president's office was not to develop an evil plot. It was to ask, "Who is this guy? and "Did we really send him to Africa?"

When they found out about Wilson's wife and her role in the matter, they quite reasonably thought that answered part of the questions. "To me, it was an explanation as to why we had found this Ambassador Wilson and sent him off to Africa," Grenier testified. "I thought that was germane to the story." So they passed it on.

ONE thing we're not learning more about is Valerie Plame herself. Was she a covert CIA agent - was her job status classified?

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said publicly that she was classified, but the jury hasn't been allowed to hear any of it. "What her actual status was, or whether any damage would result from disclosure of her status, are totally irrelevant to your decision of guilt or innocence," Judge Reggie Walton told the jurors on the first day.

Whatever her status, don't expect to learn it from this trial.

NOW it's Libby's turn to present a defense. In com ing days, we'll see journalists like Bob Woodward and Robert Novak - the man who originally introduced Valerie Plame to the world. And then we might see Dick Cheney himself.

Will they give us the definitive answer on whether Lewis Libby lied to the grand jury? Probably not. But they'll certainly tell us more about what happened back in those strange days of 2003, when the CIA leak controversy began.

Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Given that every witness thus far called has refuted "Scooter's" version of events, it would seem that the charges of obstruction of justice, lying to a grand jury and lying to a federal officer have some legs. It would also appear that Dick Cheney gave the orders to out a CIA agent in a "time of war".

Now, about Sandy Berger...Just trying to change the subject? Sandy Berger is old news and is over with. The Libby trail brings the very integrity and honesty of the Bush White House into question, or have you forgotten the Bush campaign promise to bring integrity and honesty to the office of POTUS

 

[red states rule]

Given that every witness thus far called has refuted "Scooter's" version of events, it would seem that the charges of obstruction of justice, lying to a grand jury and lying to a federal officer have some legs. It would also appear that Dick Cheney gave the orders to out a CIA agent in a "time of war".

Now, about Sandy Berger...Just trying to change the subject? Sandy Berger is old news and is over with. The Libby trail brings the very integrity and honesty of the Bush White House into question, or have you forgotten the Bush campaign promise to bring integrity and honesty to the office of POTUS

Like your dreams of impeachment BP, you will be oh so disappointed when Scooter scoots out of court with a "Not Guilty" verdict

The you spend days ranting how the trail was stolen

As far as Sandy Burgler, of course you do not want to talk about it. He is a liberal and he gets a pass

As far as Sandy Burgler, of course you do not want to talk about him. He is a liberal
I reember how the liberal reporters on TV were on the verge of tears when Karl Rove was not charged. It was a joy to watch

 

[insein]

My question is, if no crime occurred for outing Valerie Plame, then why is libby on trial? Is that ALL they could get on this guy? Perjury for being asked the same question 3000 times until he screwed up slightly on an event that still isnt considered a crime? And if it is a crime to out Valerie Plame, why isnt Richard Armitage on trial here? He is the one that ADMITTED To leaking her name.

This is merely a partisan witch hunt with a prosecutor that was hired to throw shit at the Bush wall and see if anything sticks.

 

[red states rule]

My question is, if no crime occurred for outing Valerie Plame, then why is libby on trial? Is that ALL they could get on this guy? Perjury for being asked the same question 3000 times until he screwed up slightly on an event that still isnt considered a crime? And if it is a crime to out Valerie Plame, why isnt Richard Armitage on trial here? He is the one that ADMITTED To leaking her name.

This is merely a partisan witch hunt with a prosecutor that was hired to throw shit at the Bush wall and see if anything sticks.

So the liberal media can unleash the attack dogs and report what they want to happen - not what actually happened

 

[mattskramer]

I find this similar to the Paula Jones story. Bill Clinton may or may not have harassed Paula Jones. That is a side issue. He supposedly committed perjury. He denied having sexual relationships with Lewinsky. The Republicans went after him about the alleged perjury like starving pit bulldogs go after a steak.

Anyway, what am I missing in this comparison. Someone supposedly leaked information about the identity of a CIA employee. That is a side issue. Libby supposedly committed perjury. The Democrats are going after him like starving pit bulldogs go after a steak.

It looks like what goes around comes around. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. What am I missing here?

 

[insein]

I find this similar to the Paula Jones story. Bill Clinton may or may not have harassed Paula Jones. That is a side issue. He supposedly committed perjury. He denied having sexual relationships with Lewinsky. The Republicans went after him about the alleged perjury like starving pit bulldogs go after a steak.

Anyway, what am I missing in this comparison. Someone supposedly leaked information about the identity of a CIA employee. That is a side issue. Libby supposedly committed perjury. The Democrats are going after him like starving pit bulldogs go after a steak.

It looks like what goes around comes around. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. What am I missing here?

That libby will goto prison and clinton will be free.

 

[Avatar4321]

That libby will goto prison and clinton will be free.

Which is atrocious since Clinton actually committed a crime and Libby didn't.

 

[maineman]

Which is atrocious since Clinton actually committed a crime and Libby didn't.

what "crime" was Clinton ever found guilty of committing?