March 6, 2007

Minutes after we hear that their notes make the jurors seem confused, the verdict is in.

Here's the piece about the confused-sounding notes.
In their questions, which were released Tuesday morning, jurors seemed confused about what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was alleging.

Were prosecutors saying Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA by the time of his FBI interview, jurors asked? Was he accused of lying to Cooper? Or does the government believe Libby's account of the Cooper conversation was untrue?

Walton tried to clarify things.

"To be clear, Mr. Libby is charged in Count Three with making false statements to the FBI about what was said during his July 12, 2003 conversation with Mr. Cooper," Walton wrote in response. "Mr. Libby is not charged with making a false statement to Mr. Cooper."

The reading of the verdict is scheduled for noon, Eastern Time.

UPDATE: I'm watching the CNN Pipeline, "Awaiting Libby Verdict." We overhear the journalists chatting as they mill around off camera. One guy stays in the frame. He's got a Burberry scarf all twirled around his neck and lower face. How cold is it in D.C. anyway? Oh, good Lord, he just put on a wool hat. Hmmm... I see it's 26°. "I did it. I'm guilty. I'd do it again." I hear someone -- not the scarf guy -- say. Ooh, I guess I'm "live-blogging" as they say.

"Guilty on 4 out of 5 counts," someone says. Are they predicting or hearing? They are hearing.

114 comments:

Bob said...

So much for my prediction that they'd deadlock.

MadisonMan said...

When will he be pardoned?

I think the jurors in this case should really be heartily thanked by everyone. I would not have wanted to perform that duty. My 1-day duty a year ago was very interesting. I don't know how I'd react to weeks.

SteveR said...

Now what was the investigation about anyway?

MadisonMan said...

I've noticed in a couple pictures of Libby with his lawyer that Libby comes up to the lawyer's shoulder. Barely. Is Libby that short, or is his lawyer a giant?

Ann Althouse said...

Madisonman: He'll appeal. That will take a long time. A good day for pardons is the last day in office.

Wade_Garrett said...

I know they're going to appeal, but I don't see how they're going to overturn this verdict, unless there was some overwhelmingly prejudicial evidentiary error. The jurty found him not guilty on the third count, which to me shows that they weren't politically motivated. Anybody who doesn't think that Bush is going to pardon this felon has their head in the sand, and their tv tuned into Fox News.

I can't wait to see what happens in the civil lawsuit. Bush won't be able to pardon him in a civil suit. Get ready to pay up, Scooter.

The bigger picture: The administration misled us into war, then lied and outed covert operatives in an attempt to protect themselves. I love how the administration maintains that there was no underlying crime. If there wasn't, then why lie, other than to protect your superiors? If she wasn't covert, then why would the CIA, which is led by a Republican and whose job it is to know who is covert and who is not, say that she was? Did Bush read it in the Bible or something? Isn't that how he arrives at all of his policy decisions?

Wade_Garrett said...

Also, I love listening to non-lawyers cover trials. "Clearly . . . this jury . . . didn't find him guilty by a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

What?

SteveR said...

Wade civil suit for what? What damages? Who "outed" her anyway? Armitrage

Fen said...

The bigger picture: The administration misled us into war,

No. They did not mislead. Even Edwards, sitting on the intelligence cmte agrees. He said he was suspicious and so he went back to Clinton officials to confirm. They told him the same thing Bush said: Saddam has a WMD program.

then lied and outed covert operatives in an attempt to protect themselves

They didn't out a covert op. Wilson lied in his oped about Saddam seeking enriched uranium from Niger, Wilson lied by claiming White House sent him. Reporters asked White House why they would send Wilson [a known Bush detractor] on such a mission. They responded that they didn't send him, that his wife at CIA recommended him for the mission.

And again, Plame was not a covert agent:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html


===

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

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

I'm interested in what specifically Libby lied about to FBI and why. I'd also like to see transcripts of testimony. Is Fitz going to release that evidence the way Starr did?

Fritz said...

Libby is guilty, the jury did a good job. The killer Libby: "Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know – I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime. "

If it were true, but to make-up this story is a crime, Ari Fleischer's testimony was the most damming.

RogerA said...

Irrespective of one's political views, this trial, like the whitewater, Espy, Weinberger, and other investigations and trials in the past should give any thinking citizen pause before wanting to be a public servant. What, precisely, is the reward for public service in an overheated political environment? I dont see any plus sides to public service. Just my .02.

NSC said...

I did not expect this, but then after 24 years in law enforcement I should know better than to try to read a jury.

He will appeal and probably won't do any jail time before his pardon.

NSC said...

Oh yes, Cheney is still VP and Bush is still the President.

David53 said...

A good day for pardons is the last day in office.

I would bet he does get pardoned. Right or wrong, that's politics. Hillary is still feeling the backlash from her husband's last day pardons. See here and here.

MadisonMan said...

Well, I suppose the good thing about this verdict for some Republicans is that it temporarily knocks the story of the fired US Attorneys off the front page. Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici must be (temporarily) relieved.

Revenant said...

Anybody who doesn't think that Bush is going to pardon this felon has their head in the sand, and their tv tuned into Fox News.

Why would Fox News viewers be surprised if Bush pardoned Libby? Conservatives generally WANT Bush to pardon Libby.

I can't wait to see what happens in the civil lawsuit.

That's easy -- nothing. Richard Armitage has admitted that HE was Novak's source.

Fritz said...

This is a good result to blow back the Clinton apologists that think his problems was about a blow job. Libby was guilty and so was Clinton. You don't lie when in the judicial system.

Sloanasaurus said...

Libby should and will be pardoned. The whole trial was political.

The conviction is a great victory though for the left. They can spin the conviction to make it seem like Libby leaked Plame's name rather than lied to investigators.

Joe Baby said...

Let justice be done, so long as we don't get more Joe Wilson in the process.

sembolina pilchard said...

The whole Washington DC system has been for many, many years, but only continues to sink lower in its cesspool of corruption and mutual self-preservation while a few unfortunates get sacrificed.

Fitzgerald spent all of this time on this case; what has the DOJ become?

Senator Reid is already out of the box. The jurors within the hour are in front of the cameras lamenting that they were not fed Mr. Rove or Vice President Cheney, and saying how sorry they feel for poor Mr. Libby.

Look at Sandy Berger. Look at William Jefferson in Louisiana.

Libby will be and should be pardoned.

How the greater good of our communities continue to tolerate the nonsense on both sides of the political aisle is an absolute mystery to me.

MadisonMan said...

The conviction is a great victory though for the left.

Why view this through the right/left political prism? Someone in power lied to prosecutors, and was called on it, and found guilty. It's a nice example of how US justice works, even if you are well-connected politically. In how many other countries would this happen?

I don't understand why politicians lie to investigators. Shouldn't they learn from history?

Fritz said...

Mad Man,
David Shuster of PMSNBC was trying as hard as he could to move the conspiracy forward. The Bush Bashers see this as a victory about Iraq, not that Scooter got himself in trouble. As Fitzgerald remarked, the cloud over the White house was Libby's doing.

MadisonMan said...

not that Scooter got himself in trouble

What is PMSNBC? I'm laughing at the possibilities.

Anyway, I'm not certain he did this himself. I just don't think anyone in DC acts truly alone.

Ann, who was the 8 millionth visitor?

Mellow-Drama said...

David53 said, in response to the pardon question, Hillary is still feeling the backlash from her husband's last day pardons.

I guess we'd better hope that Laura isn't planning on running for President, then.

Daryl Herbert said...

Why view this through the right/left political prism? Someone in power lied to prosecutors, and was called on it, and found guilty.

Because this verdict will be used as proof that Plame was a covert agent (she wasn't), that she was "outed" (not as a covert agent, she wasn't), that Joe Wilson had any business being sent to Niger (his wife tapped him, he had no special qualifications), that Joe Wilson did anything notable in Africa (he had tea with some bigshots), that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove orchestrated the outing for political reasons (she wasn't outed as a covert agent), that Fitzgerald was investigating Plame's outing (she wasn't a covert agent), that Bush lied about Saddam buying yellowcake from Niger in the SotU (Bush said Saddam "sought" yellowcake from "Africa") . . .

How can you possibly ask anyone to disentangle the Libby case from the left/right divide? There's no way to take partisan politics out of a purely political prosecution of an executive staffer.

Gahrie said...

I don't understand why politicians lie to investigators. Shouldn't they learn from history?


Hell Clinton got away with it.......

NSC said...

I really don't see this as that big a deal either way to the average American. If it had been Rove or Cheney it might be interesting, but Libby? Who the hell really cares outside of us folks who follow politics and we had our minds made up already regardless of what the jury said.

Now find something new about Anna Nicole and people will pay attention.

Revenant said...

Why view this through the right/left political prism? Someone in power lied to prosecutors, and was called on it, and found guilty. It's a nice example of how US justice works, even if you are well-connected politically.

Armitage told Fitzgerald, early in the investigation, that he was the one who told Novak about Plame. Fitzgerald has declined to prosecute Armitage for this. Which means that Libby lied under oath while being investigated for something the prosecutor didn't consider worthy of prosecution.

If revealing Plame's status was illegal then the primary target of the investigation should have been the person who outed a CIA agent to the press: Armitage. If it *wasn't* illegal then Fitzgerald was obligated to end the investigation once he knew that. Either way, Fitzgerald's behavior in this case has been a disgrace to the justice system.

So yes, it is nice to see perjurers go to prison (although I'd love to know where all the left-wingers saying this today were back in the late 90s). But it would also be nice to see a prosecutor with some grasp of ethics.

Fritz said...

Mad Man,
Rush refers to MSNBC as PMS-NBC.

He did this on his own, while Wells tried to make him a victim, in the end, the jury acknowledged Libby did this himself. If I were the Vice President, I would be angry.

Mellow,
Yes this is just another victim of the Clintons. Libby was Marc Rich's Clinton pardon attorney, a pardon for a crime that Fitzgerald prosecuted.

RogerA said...

One would have thought that we learned our lesson with special prosecutors in the 1980s and 1990s.

If the DOJ can't conduct an investigation then the AG should be fired. The politicization of the Attorney General,I suspect, is the culprit here.

reality check said...

If I read FDL correctly, Fitzgerald said, "Trial evidence? The judge made a ruling that the case would not be tried based on Valerie Plame Wilson's status. her relationship with the CIA was classified — I have 100% confidence in this information."

Repeat: the CIA could not have filed with Justice on this case originally unless Plame was covert. Walton said she was covert. Fitzgerald has said she was covert.

Michael Isikoff confirms that Plame was covert.

What will it take Ann, for you or your wingnut contingent to accept that Plame was covert?

Winguts: state what it would take or get off your posture you have any sort of ability to reason independently.

reality check said...

As the jurors said, "Where is Rove in this?"

The question is why does Rove still have a security clearance? Why isn't Rove in Federal PMITA custody?

Let's face it, the Bush Crime Family that you empowered has set back American interests by generations and damaged us for generations to come, while enriching themselves off the back of the taxpayers.

And I worry very much about the blowback.

XWL said...

The 5th Amendment is a wonderful thing, from now on, anybody in a politically motivated case should use it.

I can't believe that lawyers in these sort of cases don't issue the following and empahtic instructions to their clients, "STFU!!!"

Had President Clinton followed that advice, or Martha Stewart, or Scooter Libby, all would have avoided a mess of trouble.

I suspect their lawyers in each of those cases probably issued such advice (though maybe not that colorfully), but the egos of those under investigation got in the way. They probably all thought they could finesse their language and narrative well enough to stay within the law and still make themselves out as being innocent. Didn't work out so well for them.

None of the above were convicted for what they were initially charged with, but fell afoul of prosecutors because of alleged lying.

If you say nothing, you can't be accused of lying.

The Exalted said...

Fen said...

No. They did not mislead.


in the NIE, they unclassified the evidence that said iraq had wmd and posed a threat, and kept classified all evidence to the contrary. why do this if not to mislead?

when they presented their "case" to the intelligence committees, they did the same thing: presented the evidence that indicated wmds/imminent threat, ignored or downplayed all other evidence to the contrary. again, why do this if not to mislead?

a hypothetical example would be something like this:

scientist A says that he worked on projects X, Y, and Z, all of which were devoted to constructing and then hiding wmd. however, his story has changed a number of times, and we have reason to doubt he was on these projects. his accounting of events has been deemed by those in the agency to be less than credible.

the first sentence would be released, the second and third sentences would be classified.

this isn't rocket science, even if for some reason the dems have a hard time explaining it so clearly.

Fen said...

What will it take Ann, for you or your wingnut contingent to accept that Plame was covert?

Evidence that she meets that standard under US law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html

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

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

==

How come you keep dodging that?

reality check said...

The evidence from the CIA filing, Fitzgerald, Walton and Isikoff is that she was covert.

What evidence do you have that she was not?

Simply repeating the statute means nothing.

Which sections, clauses, etc., does she fail?

Fritz said...

Reality Check,
OK, for the sake of argument Plame was covert. Fitzgerald investigated. No crime on that issue. When are the netroots going to acknowledge that the Wilsons had an obligation not to bring attention to themselves? If this trial was about the outing, they would have been compelled to testify. It would have been fascinating to listen to Joe try to explain that away. Their baseless civil suit will provide us with that entertainment.

reality check said...

Pelosi:

Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual.

This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.

reality check said...

When are the netroots going to acknowledge that the Wilsons had an obligation not to bring attention to themselves?

What are you talking about? How did they bring attention to themselves?

MadisonMan said...

They didn't ask me, but Democratic Politicians should just keep their mouths shut. Asked about the verdict, they should reply: "I thank the jury for their hard work. I think the verdict speaks for itself. Now if you'll excuse me I have more important work to do."

reality check said...

I think MadisonMan is right.

Democrats, all Democrats, should say nothing about this and let Bush and Tony Snow and Boehner and McConnell and Rush and Hannity and Frist and DeLay and Althouse and Fen and John Gibson do all the talking.

I don't know what Pelosi was thinking!

George said...

In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane.

-1984, Orwell

reality check said...

I think we can all safely conclude from this jury's findings that Libby was obstructing an investigation.

Why was Libby the only one to lie?

Who was Libby protecting?

If Libby had told the truth, would he have been shot in the face too?

Fritz said...

Reality Check,
The single session Speaker can talk all she wants. Fitzmas never happened, the story is over.

President Bush will not pardon Libby and he shouldn't. Libby's lying to protect himself caused the Administration greater headaches than were necessary.

MadisonMan said...

reality check: Pelosi's quote is demonstrably false. The only person convicted was Libby. His lies.

I don't think anyone in America needs the spin on the verdict as Ms. Pelosi sees it to interpret the verdict. Pelosi comes across as either a patronizer, interpreting the results for us too dumb to know, or as a political hack, using the results to make hay. Neither is good.

Fritz said...

Reality Check,
Libby telling investigators and the Grand Jury a false story that only involved himself. Your assertion he was protecting someone else has no basis in fact.

The Exalted said...

if there was no underlying problem, why would he lie to the federal investigators?

reality check said...

Yes MadisonMan, that's why you're Althouse's number one backer.

Fitz:

There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice," Fitzgerald said.

"There is a cloud over the White House. Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?" Fitzgerald asked the jury.

Libby, Fitzgerald continued, "stole the truth from the justice system.


You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened.
...
If you think that the vice president and the defendant 'Scooter' Libby weren't talking about [Plame] during the week where the vice president writes that [Plame] sent [Wilson] on a junket, in [Wilson's] July 6 column, the vice president moves the number one talking point, 'not clear who authorized [Wilson's Niger trip], if you think that's a coincidence, well, that makes no sense,
...
He's put the doubt into whatever happened that week, whatever is going on between the Vice President and the defendant, that cloud was there. That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there
...
The Vice President cuts out the article, the guy he works for. That's important. The Vice President makes the note about the wife. That's important. Government Exhibit 412, he makes the note, the Maureen Dowd column. That's important.
...
Let's assume the best-case scenario, the Vice President asked the question, not Mr. Libby, since he did most of the talking. This is a fingerprint that says on July 14th, the Vice President has read the Novak column. The other exhibit shows you, around July 14th, the defendant read the Novak column. And this is a fingerprint that says the brains of the Vice President and defendant Libby are wrapped around the Novak column on July 14th.


And Fitz today:

Downward departure? If they wish to pursue any options, they can contact us — and we aren't going to comment on that, just as we don't comment on any other case.

Fritz said...

Reality Check,
Today Fitzgerald explained what that meant. Mr. Libby created the cloud by not telling the truth. Had he been truthful, the cloud of his investigation would have gone away.

the Exalted,
Clearly you have not been following the case. Stop watching PMSNBC. KO, Matthews, Schuster think this trial was about WMD. Libby was worried that his conversations about Plame could be prosecuted as a crime, so he lied.

reality check said...

Look what Libby's own defense said,

The lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., and Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald agreed that Vice President Cheney ordered Libby, then his chief of staff, to contact reporters early in the summer of 2003 in an effort to rebut criticism that the administration had selectively used intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Libby's attorney said, he was acting at Cheney's instructions to respond to allegations that the vice president withheld information that would have raised doubts about whether Iraq was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.


So Libby's own defense is that Cheney directed his actions, and then we find that Libby lies to Fitzgerald about all of this.

Why? Why would an honorable man like I. Lewis Libby lie? It goes against everything he has stood for during his career?

It goes against everything except one principle, protect your boss.

David Walser said...

Reality Check, the reason the statute keeps being cited is that one cannot read the statute and come to a good faith belief that Libby violated that statute. One clear cut black and white example: For Plame to have been covert, she would have had to have been stationed outside the US within 5 years of the disclosure of her name to Novak [see 4)(A)(ii)]. Plame was in the US for 6 years before Armitage disclosed her name to Novak. Since she did not meet the 5 year requirement, she could not have been covert. Period.

Fitzgerald knew this. That's why Armitage was not and could not have been prosecuted for outing Plame. Instead, Fitzgerald decided that what Cheney did was wrong and tried to find some way of punishing him for "pushing back" at a critic of the Administration. Armitage did not leak Plame's name as part of Cheney's push back, so Fitzgerald called him a "good leaker" and let his leak pass. Libby, on the other hand, was part of the push back effort and was worthy of punishment -- even though he had done NOTHING illegal before Fitzgerald's team went after him. Did he lie or did he misstate things based on poor memory of the events? The jury determined that he lied. I have no reason to doubt they believe that. I do have reason to doubt this prosecution should ever have been brought. We should not allow prosecutors to investigate in the hope of creating a crime. That's what happened here. Fitzgerald knew or should have known soon after his appointment that nothing criminal was involved with the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak. He should have shut things down then and there. If he had no reason to suspect criminal activity, he had no legitimate purpose in compelling testimony under oath -- or for sending Judith Miller to jail for 85 days until she agreed to testify against Libby.

David Walser said...

So Libby's own defense is that Cheney directed his actions, and then we find that Libby lies to Fitzgerald about all of this.

Why? Why would an honorable man like I. Lewis Libby lie? It goes against everything he has stood for during his career?

It goes against everything except one principle, protect your boss.


There was nothing illegal in Cheney's orders for Libby to push back against Wilson! Politicians of all stripes try to rebut their critics. If this is now a crime, all of Washington DC should be sent to jail. Since Libby admited in his 1st FBI interview discussing Plame with reporters, he must not have thought it illegal to do so.

reality check said...

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But 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. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.)

reality check said...

There was nothing illegal in Cheney's orders for Libby to push back against Wilson!

Push back is one thing. But what were Cheney's orders? Was it push back, or was it leak the status of Plame, or was it...?

Who knows?

Libby placed a cloud of Cheney and circumstantial evidence makes Cheney's acts look very suspicious, and then Libby obstructed justice.

It's really a shame for them both.

Mark said...

David Walser said...
"Reality Check, the reason the statute keeps being cited is that one cannot read the statute and come to a good faith belief that Libby violated that statute. One clear cut black and white example: For Plame to have been covert, she would have had to have been stationed outside the US within 5 years of the disclosure of her name to Novak [see 4)(A)(ii)]. Plame was in the US for 6 years before Armitage disclosed her name to Novak. Since she did not meet the 5 year requirement, she could not have been covert. Period. "


David, did you even read the statute? :) The statute DOES NOT say that Plame had to have been stationed outside the US within the 5 years. Do you see the word "Or"?

reality check said...

It is really inexcusable you wingnuts don't already know this stuff.

It's been published and discussed for years now.

You should think about where you get your information from, because someone has been lying to you.

Fritz said...

Reality Check,
So? It appears that the prosecution had all relevant documents, nothing illegal. There is no illegality to talk to reporters, there isn't even a law that he had to be truthful to what he says to reporters. He is guilty of lying to the FBI, Grand Jury that he learned of Plame from reporters. We heard testimony that he discussed with Cheney the whole Wilson-Plame connection. Where is the cover-up?

David Walser said...

Mark,

Yes, I did see the "or". However, none of the other classifications could have applied to Plame. The first classification (before the "or") is for employees and retired employees of the government. The other classifications are for non-employees. Plame was an employee, so she had to meet the five year requirement in order to be "covert" for the statute.

Sorry I did not cover that territory in the prior post. It was getting a bit long, already.

ASX said...

Wade_Garrett: Thank you for bringing some truth to the readers of this thread; however they get it, it's nice that the readers of Althouse blog can find some truth.

SteveR: Your barely coherent attempts to reconstruct fact-free Republican talking points is, well, touching.

Fen: They did not mislead? My God, man. You don't even know what this trial was about, do you? I'm sorry. I wish I could help you.

Fen: About Plame's covert status, you must not have listened to Fitzgerald's Q&A after the conviction of your man Libby. Fitz said, "there is no doubt that Plame's relationship with the CIA was classified." Deal with the facts, Fen. Spend some time in reality. You might learn to like it.

RogerA: It's just as well that you don't see any plus side to public service if your moral compass is so misaligned that you think Libby is just a poor victim.

MadisonMan: If you keep talking about the purge of US Attorneys, Ann is going to have to write a post defending it.

Revenent: You haven't been paying very close attention to this scandal, even though it has been in the news for four years -- plenty of time for you to have gotten the facts straight. Armitage was but one of four people who leaked Plame's identity to the media. One of four.

Fritz: You win for joke of the day. That was funny when you said the Libby verdict found Clinton guilty! LOL LOL LOL! How do you come up with such gems?

Sloanasaurus: You're right: The verdict is a great victory for the left; even with the pardon, this verdict helps seal Bush's fate as the worst president in US history. Thank god I didn't vote for him.

Daryl Herbert: Whether Plame fit the definition of "covert op" or not is beside the point. Her relationship with the CIA was classified. Check Fitzgerald's commentary after the convictions were read in court today.

NSC: Nice try to diminish the significance of this story. But it is a stain that will be with you for the rest of your life. There have already been several days of coverage of these White House crimes all over the media. The damage has been done and the message delivered to the American people: these people are crooks. That's why Bush's approval is at Nixon levels, and Cheney's below them. That's why Bush will live in infamy for the rest of his days. That's why he will go down in history as the biggest failure to ever occupy the office. And it's why you will be bitter for the rest of your life about all of it.

David Walser said...

Reality Check: "Feb. 13, 2006 issue..." Got a link? This, if true, would be news, indeed. Walton has said several times to the jury that the jury should not speculate about Plame's status. He went on to tell them that he, as judge of the case, had not seen any information that answered that question. Now then, since Judge Walton reviewed the referral from the CIA in camera before ruling it contained nothing helpful to the defense, and since Libby's defense had requested any information the prosecution had on the question and the prosecution said it had none, learning that Fitzgerald DID have something would be very big news.

ASX said...

You know what is just froogin' hilarious?

What cracks me up to no end?

The fact that conservatives keep repeating "but she wasn't stationed outside of the US in five years!" as if that mattered.

News to Wingnuts: Libby still got convicted!!!

LOL! :D What a great day it is.

RSwan said...

ASX,

You do realize that classified does not equal covert?


I thought not.

Fritz said...

ASX,
Why don't you, Chris Matthews, David Schuster, Andrew Sullivan, KO go have a celebratory drink. The story is over. Fitzmas never happened.

Mark said...

Daryl,

You seem wrong. In the statute, B and C do not exclude former employees of the government. In general, it seems to be accepted by Fitzgerald, Isikoff, and the people "in the know" that she WAS a covert agent. Thanks.

AllenS said...

Libby better hope that his lawyers win on appeal. If he puts his hope on getting a pardon from Bush, he will be sadly disappointed. Bush is a sissy, and an idiot. Prompting your father to hang with Bill Clinton is a very good indication of his inability to form a clean and clear thought.

RogerA said...

ASX--actually you scum bag I have spent my entire life in public service--I dont need an asshole like you lecturing me about my moral compass: fuck off scumbag

Fritz said...

Plame's status means nothing. I'll give her covert status, has no bearing on this case. There will be no charges related to it's revelation. What I don't like hearing from conservatives, is the excuse that this case should have not been pursued, and the pass given to Libby's attempt to cover his role in it. I don't like politically driven investigations, but they are a reality and it was his responsibility to cooperate truthfully. Paula Jones had a right to seek truth, so did Patrick Fitzgerald on behalf of the US.

Fritz said...

Rogera,
This isn't Kos, keep the language civil.

David Walser said...

What cracks me up to no end?

The fact that conservatives keep repeating "but she wasn't stationed outside of the US in five years!" as if that mattered.

News to Wingnuts: Libby still got convicted!!!


Yes. Libby got convicted. Not for outing a covert agent! He was convicted for lying to investigators who were not investigating a crime. (They knew none could have been committed. They already knew who's Novak's source was.) It doesn't bother you that they set a perjury trap for Libby? (It matters not that Libby should not have fallen into the trap. Prosecutors should not set such traps.) I don't want unelected prosecutors accountable to no one (Fitzgerald was "acting attorney general" in this matter. He was not supervised by anyone in the DOJ.) interviewing people in the hope they might be able to catch them in what might arguably be called a lie. That's too much power to give anyone. Best evidence: This trial. Fitzgerald said in his press conference announcing the indictment that it did not matter what law was used to punish the wrong doers, as long as they were punished. The problem, in this case, there was no wrong to punish -- unless you count as "wrong" the perfectly legal rebuttal of Wilson's false claims.

SteveR said...

ASX: Not to intrude on RogerA's well stated opinion of you, but you are weak and angry, a pathetic person. Try answering my questions, if you want to rebuke me, otherwise STFU.

Fritz said...

David Walser,
Sorry dude, I don't consider this a trap. Fitzgerald had enough evidence that multiple persons were leaking her name. How else did he conclude that no crime was committed for this inquiry? His recollections were not the problem, his attempt to claim he forgot an important fact was simply not believable.

stoqboy said...

Without regard to the outcome, what bugs me about bringing the obstructing justice charge in this case (and Martha Stewart's case) is that there is no determination that an injustice was done. We here can argue forever about the what ifs but no charge was brought and no determination made. Just for arguments sake, assume that no insider trading took place (of that Mrs Wilson was neither covert nor classified), so that no injustice was done. How then is lying to prosecutors obstruction?

David Walser said...

Plame's status means nothing. I'll give her covert status, has no bearing on this case. There will be no charges related to it's revelation. What I don't like hearing from conservatives, is the excuse that this case should have not been pursued, and the pass given to Libby's attempt to cover his role in it. I don't like politically driven investigations, but they are a reality and it was his responsibility to cooperate truthfully. Paula Jones had a right to seek truth, so did Patrick Fitzgerald on behalf of the US.

Fritz, I'm not trying to excuse Libby's lies (if indeed there were any). I am, however, bothered more by abuse of power than I am by someone trying to look good under questioning. Just as I'm more concerned about police brutality than I am domestic violence. One happens under color of law and involves not just the misdeed itself but the abuse of power.

In this case, Fitzgerald helped Russert file a clearly false affidavit with the court. (Russert was trying to make a good public show of not "giving up a source without a fight" when he had already TWICE talked to the FBI about Libby's conversations with him. Russert falsely claimed that he could not talk to the government about a source -- he already had and Fitzgerald knew it! Did he disclose this material fact to the court? No. Ethical? No.) In this case, Fitzgerald sent a reporter to jail for 85 days when she refused to testify against Libby. In support of sending the reporter to jail, he submitted information to the court that he needed her testimony to determine who the leaker was (when he already knew it was Armitage). He misled the court that her testimony was vital to an investigation into national security matters. (He already knew who the leaker was and had granted him immunity.) What he wanted was a perjury count against Libby. There is no way he could have gotten the DOJ to approve going after a reporter on that basis -- it violated DOJ guidelines. Then, when the defense tried to point out that Fitzgerald hadn't been on a good faith search for the truth -- else why did he not interview a number of reporters who had said (or who his own witnesses said) they had been told of Plame's status before Novak -- he got Judge Walton to allow him to submit to the jury the DOJ guidelines on pursuing reporters testimony. He claimed he could not compel those reporters to testify without violating those guidelines. Funny, the reporters whose testimony might have undercut his witnesses testimony were out of bounds, but Judith Miller was not. I understand aggressive prosecutors. I even have some sympathy for that approach. In this case, Fitzgerald went beyond what was fair and right. Libby shouldn't have lied. Fitzgerald shouldn't have lied to the court and allowed Russert to lie to the court in order to catch a Libby for a lie.

Revenant said...

Armitage was but one of four people who leaked Plame's identity to the media. One of four.

Armitage was the first to leak Plame's name, and the only one to damage her cover by doing so (because he leaked it to Novak, who then published it).

Yes, other people mentioned her status to reporters. But Armitage is the one who committed the "crime" that led Wilson and Plame to demand a criminal investigation in the first place. So why isn't he rotting in a jail cell?

Answer: because nothing illegal happened here. It's just the usual political bullshit. Fitzgerald had a grudge against Libby and found something to nail him on; prosecutors pull that sort of nonsense every day of the week.

David Walser said...

Sorry dude, I don't consider this a trap. Fitzgerald had enough evidence that multiple persons were leaking her name. How else did he conclude that no crime was committed for this inquiry? His recollections were not the problem, his attempt to claim he forgot an important fact was simply not believable.

What do you call it, if not a trap? He already knew who the leaker was and had determined that no crime had been committed. (Else, Armitage would have been prosecuted, no?) If no crime has been committed, why the investigation? Do we routinely allow prosecutors to compel testimony -- under penalty of law -- to satisfy their idle curiosity? Fitzgerald keeps talking grandly about the public's right to know. I'm not aware of any such general right to knowledge. Absent some reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, can the local DA haul you or me in front of the grand jury just because the public wants to know the answer to some question? (This is different than Congress holding hearings on a topic of legislative interest, then Congress can compel testimony. So, too, can a federal agency gathering information for purposes of formulating regulations. That's NOT what was going on here.) The only purpose for compelling Libby's testimony was to gin up a charge of perjury. Fitzgerald had already answered his legitimate questions. In pursuing Libby, Fitzgerald was ignoring the DOJ guideline on interviewing administration officials who, for political considerations, had waived their right to plead the 5th.

reality check said...

Got a link?

Jeez, how lazy or stupid are you?

G o o g l e

David Walser said...

Got a link?

Jeez, how lazy or stupid are you?

G o o g l e


How stupid am I? Stupid enough to try and carry on a civil conversation with you, apparently. Don't worry. Won't happen again.

reality check said...

Shorter Walser: Waaah! Reality is picking on me!

Pogo said...

Wow. A perjury coviction for, uh, what did he lie about again? Oh, right, something that wasn't a crime.

At least Clinton got oral sex out of his perjured testimony.

reality check said...

Shorter Pogo: "La la la, I AM NOT LISTENING!"

Fen said...

You seem wrong. In the statute, B and C do not exclude former employees of the government

I guess some people are having trouble comprehending the statute:

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—


So far, this apllies to Plame...

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

Still applies to Plame, but notice the "and"

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

Ooops, Plame did not serve outside US within last five years. So this does not appy to her. Plame fails section A, but wait, there's an "or" so there's still hope...

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

Okay, this applies to Plame, but notice the "and"

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

Plame does not reside or act outside the United States. She fails this section, but there's still an "or" waiting...

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

She's not an informant or agent of counterintel components of FBI...

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

She's not an individual other than a US citizen. She has American citizenship. So she fails this section too.

/I can't believe I had to walk the Lefty's through that.

NSC said...

ASX said:

News to Wingnuts: Libby still got convicted!!!

And Rove and Cheney and Bush are untouched - except politically - which is an iffy deal at best since so much more has to be considered.

Fitzmus was getting Rove and/or Cheney, not little-ole Libby. And he will probably not serve a day what with appeals and the likely pardon.

Fen said...

asz: About Plame's covert status, you must not have listened to Fitzgerald's Q&A after the conviction of your man Libby. Fitz said, "there is no doubt that Plame's relationship with the CIA was classified." Deal with the facts, Fen. Spend some time in reality. You might learn to like it

I'll spend some time in your reality if you'll buy a dictionary and learn the diff between classified and covert. Idiot.

reality check said...

But 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.

Shorter Fen: The Facts Are Biased! Make them stop hurting me!

AlaskaJack said...

Juror #1: I think he is guilty of knowing that Plame worked for the CIA when he talked to the FBI.
Juror #2: I think he is guilty of lying to Cooper.
Juror #3: I think he is guilty of lying to the FBI about what Wilson told Plame about Cooper.
Juror #4: I think he is guilty of starting the Iraq war.
Foreman: Well, we all agree he's guilty of something. So let's vote to convict.

There's better than a 90% chance that this verdict will be reversed on appeal.

Cat said...

Remind that this all started with Wilson's lying in the NY Times about his findings on his trip to Niger. And that he said he was sent at the behest of Cheney rather than telling the truth that his wife volunteered him for the trip.

Regarding that trip, in the WAPO:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

"Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission - Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role."

"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report."

"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. "

Oh, and to ASX and others, Plame was not covert and the person who outed her first was her own damn husband. If he wasn't such a liar, her so-called career at the CIA wouldn't be over as she claims. In fact, if they both didn't have an agenda and were really interested in facts and what is best for the country, none of this would have happened.

The civil lawsuit will be thrown out in due time in part thanks to the Senate Intelligence Committees investigation.

Cat said...

One more thing, the only people who pay attention to this stuff are political junkies. Anyone pulling a lever won't know about this.

As far as the pardons go, the Clinton pardons were a looked at so negatively because of whom was pardoned - a someone who fled the country from justice, Mark Rich; friends of Hillary's brothers who were paid off; and Hillary votes for pardons for the FALN terrorists and the Hasidum convicted of bilking NY state and the federal government of millions of dollars.

A Libby is small potatoes compared to that.

Seven Machos said...

This is really going to effect President Bush's relection chances.

Revenant said...

Shorter Walser:
Shorter Pogo:
Shorter Fen:

It looks like RC is slowly learning how to distill and present other people's posts. It is just a short step from there to actually presenting some short, coherent posts of his own.

Go, RC! You can do it! Dare to believe!

MadisonMan said...

AlaskaJack, when I was a juror (for a very small deal trial) we were very conscientious, and I have no reason to think otherwise with this jury. Your comments are pretty insulting to all jurors.

Seven Machos said...

Here's what I think:

1. This whole case is very confusing.

2. I'm sure this jury did a good and ethical job.

3. Libby probably did lie. People lie all the time. It is a crime.

4. There was some bad blood between Libby and Fitzgerald over, of all things, the Marc Rich pardon. Libby represented Rich.

5. As an aside, a very liberal law professor of mine went on and on during the Clinton mess about how perjury is absurd and about how the jury's job is to discern who is telling the truth. I wonder if he still sticks to that principle regarding this case.

6. This case was not about the underlying issues. It was a proxy, like the Alger Hiss case. As such, there will be no viable civil suit.

Seven Machos said...

On edit: lying is NOT a crime. Lying under oath is.

me said...

AlaskaJack, just keep believing the verdict will be reveresd. Walton was careful and I don't see the DC Circuit finding an abuse of discretion. But I haven't followed THAT carefully: thoughts from lawyers who followed the trial? Did anyone read Walton's 50 page opinion defending his evidentiary rulings?

me said...

PS: I think they jury sent out all those weird questions after they had found their verdicts to make sure they hadn't missed something and that they had everything nailed down. I did find the quetions very strange -- this was supposed to be an educated jury (phD's, authors, mathmeticians)? Why couldn't they write a sensible question?

me said...

On second thought, is review of Walton's evidentiary rulings de novo because they were questions of law? Weigh in experts! :)

Seven Machos said...

me -- There is a very good chance that this verdict will be overturned on appeal. The thing to understand is that it's not so much what the judge does; it's what the prosecution does.

me said...

What did the prosecution do that would result in reveresal? I've heard people say that the judge not allowing impeachment of Russert could be ground, as well as other evidentiary rulings, but not anything Fitzgerald did.

Seven Machos said...

me -- My understanding is that there are many appealable issues. The one that stands out in my mind is Fitzgerald's close. If you are interested, justoneminute.typepad.com is the place to go to find out the minutae of the case.

Ultimately, we'll find out when the appeal gets filed.

Revenant said...

Why couldn't they write a sensible question?

Maybe they were operating under non-sensible jury instructions.

George said...

So much anger.

So much name calling.

David Walser said...

Me, I'm not sure if Walton's evidentiary rulings are reviewed de novo or not. While he was careful, almost all of his rulings came down on the side of the prosecutor. Here, off the top of my head, are just a few of the decisions Walton made that, going the other way, might have made a significant change in the case.

* No. The defense cannot have an expert witness give testimony on how human memory works. (Ironic that one of the jury's questions was to whether the prosecution had to prove it was impossible for Libby to forget when Walton would not allow testimony that it was possible for Libby to forget.)
* No. The defense could not give the jury a detailed example of the volume of issues Libby dealt with on a daily basis. The defense was prevented from putting the Plame matter into what it claimed was the proper context. The prosecution was allowed to frame the Plame matter as the most important thing on Libby's plate. While the defense tried to rebut that notion, Walton denied the defense what it considered the most effective way of dealing with the issue -- show the jury what else Libby was tasked with at the time. It's hard to raise the "I was too busy to pay attention to Plame" defense if you cannot show how busy you were.
* No. The defense could not call Andrea Mitchell, who had said on TV that "everyone knew of Plame". Mitchell later recanted on the radio. Why was Mitchell important? Mitchell worked for Russert and Russert said on the stand that it was "impossible" for Russert to have known of Plame. He also said that if Mitchell had known of Plame, she would have told him. Did she know or not know and if she did, did she tell Russert? The defense was not allowed to pursue the question (and Fitzgerald refused to investigate the matter). I think that the judge's ruling on the question may have been technically correct (the defense cannot call a witness just to impeach that witness), but greatly prejudicial to Libby's defense (the defense wanted to call Mitchell to impeach Russert, but they may have needed to impeach Mitchell to achieve that result).
* Russert said that he did not know that ordinary everyday Joe's are not allowed to have an attorney with them when testifying in front of a grand jury. The defense was not allowed to offer into evidence video of Russert explaining that very thing to NBC's viewing public. Again, the judge may have been technically correct, but this was a case about memory and lying. Shouldn't the defense be able to show that Russert had forgotten or had lied in an effort to create reasonable doubt on the question of whether Russert or Libby were the most credible on the question of what took place in their conversation? The judge said, No.
* In his close, Fitzgerald clearly went over the line and told the jury that the trial was about outing a covert agent and that when you outed a covert agent, that was a very important thing because peoples' lives were at risk, so you'd remember conversations about outing a covert agent. This, after the judge had told to the jury over and over that the trial was NOT about the outing of a covert agent and that not even he, the judge, knew whether she was covert or not. The judge admonished the jury that, sometimes, in the heat of argument, attorneys say things that they don't really mean. So, they should ignore what the prosecutor had just said. How, exactly, were they supposed to do that? Fitzgerald planted the idea that Libby could not have forgotten because he knew talking about Plame would put her life at risk. Did Fitzgerald's argument play at all in the jury's determination? We don't know, but we do know the judge did virtually nothing to correct Fitzgerald's error. He did not allow the defense additional time to respond to what was a new argument raised in the prosecution's close. Walton let Fitzgerald's clearly out of bounds argument be the last thing heard by the jury. (This, after the defense, in advance of the close, had filed a motion warning the judge of Fitzgerald's habit of pulling such stunts and asking for a chance to rebut any arguments he made that were out of line. Denied.)

Walton kept telling the defense, No. If I allowed this or that, the government could not get a fair trial. (Or words to that effect.) He seemed very concerned about the government's right to a fair trial. I thought most of the rules of evidence, etc., were to assure the defendant -- the person whose liberty is at risk -- a fair trial. I don't think Walton was biased against Libby. I think he was biased in favor of conviction. If a conviction is in error, a higher court can correct the mistake. If a guilty man is erroneously acquitted, there is nothing that can be done to correct that mistake. I'm not suggesting Walton WANTS to be reversed. I'm saying I could understand a judge feeling safer coming down on the side of the prosecution when the judge knows the defendant has the wherewithal to appeal.

David Walser said...

Despite my long list of potential issues with the trial, I don't think any of those represents the strongest issue for appeal. No, the issue that I think is almost certain to lead to a reversal is Fitzgerald's appointment as special prosecutor. The acting attorney general (acting because Ashcroft recused himself) appointed Fitzgerald "with all the authority of the attorney general" for the Plame matter. The terms of the appointment relieved Fitzgerald from any supervision from anyone at DOJ. There are two huge issues with this appointment: First, after the independent prosecutor statute expired, the DOJ issued regulations governing how new special prosecutors would be appointed in the future. Fitzgerald's appointment was not done in accordance with these regulations. For one thing, a special prosecutor is supposed to come from outside the DOJ. For another, there is supposed to be a method of accountability. Fitzgerald was specifically told he need not report to anyone -- even his budget is not subject to review. Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that the duties of a constitutional office (such as the attorney general) cannot be delegated carte blanc. The constitutional office holder must retain supervision over the person to whom the office's powers have been delegated. (This prevents the executive from circumventing the Senate's advise and consent function.) When asked about this point (in Libby's motion to dismiss), Fitzgerald claimed he was supervised -- even though he reported to no one and filed no regular status reports -- because the attorney general could remain informed as to the conduct of the investigation through press reports!

So, Fitzgerald has been operating based on authority granted in defiance of DOJ regulation and in a manner that is constitutionally suspect. Fitzgerald's "supervised by press accounts" theory flew at the trial level, but I don't think it will do as well in a higher court. Again, I think the trial judge wanted the case to go to a jury, relying on the fact a higher court could correct any error later. Suppose that the court determines that Fitzgerald was acting without requisite authority, what would be the proper remedy? I'd say at the very least, a new trial. Maybe a new trial without any evidence developed by Fitzgerald.

Sloanasaurus said...

Who bothers to read comments anymore. You log on and there are already 100 comments to a particular post - most from the same two or three lefty commentators on the board making the same predictable comments. There are so many comments from the same few that I don't bother to read any of them anymore.

Perhaps Althouse should set a new guidline such as limiting each thread to 3 posts by a single person on the first day it is posted.... or something to stop the waste.

reality check said...

Personally I think Ann should just ban all leftists and delete all dissenting comments.

It would make a real conversation so much easier!

To the extent she can, she should try to get leftists in trouble with their employers, husbands, wives, dogs. At the very least she should report leftists to DHS.

Seven Machos said...

reality check: Would Ann Althouse be "censoring" you if she did not allow you to post here?

reality check said...

Don't be stupid. Of course she would be "censoring" me. It wouldn't be a first amendment case you silly meth head. But "censor" means "To keep from being published or transmitted: ban, black out, hush (up), stifle, suppress."

Gah! It's amazing you guys can breathe! Thank evolution for our autonomic nervous system!

I have to give you some credit seven machos. With all the stupid blunders you make and your irrationality and your inability to add one and one and get two, still, still, you somehow manage to pass a turing test. Congratulations.

Now open another bottle of mad-dog and drink yourself to sleep again.

Joan said...

reality_check, it's so obvious we're not worthy. And yet you continue to grace us with your presence! Such generosity of spirit surely will be rewarded in the after life.

Meanwhile, I kept hoping your namesake would make an appearance among the judges on American Idol tonight, but alas, my hope was in vain.

reality check said...

That Iraqi's are almost ready to stand up to the insurgents after we leave. Once they are ready, we should leave.
Posted by: Sloanasaurus at December 1, 2005 12:34 PM

Oops. You seem to have missed that prediction by about 14 months now.

Any more predictions Sloanasaurus?

Seven Machos said...

reality: There are thousands if not millions of blogs out there. You could even start your own (probably cats would somehow be involved, as they always are with shrill far-leftists, but I digress).

Censorship occurs under the auspices of government. How are you being censored if a privately-owned establishment prevents you from speaking in that privately-owned establishment only? Am I censored because I can't go into a nursery school and swear at the top of my lungs?

At any rate, all of this is purely speculative. Althouse is not censoring you, and she is very gracious.

As for your stalking of sloan's postings, that's just weird. Get a hobby, dude.

reality check said...

Seven Machos insists Censorship occurs under the auspices of government.

But as everyone (else) knows, censorship can take place at many levels, government, church, corporate, or even blogular.

Seven Machos has incorrectly linked his "first amendment" node with his "censorship node" using a "1:1" link instead of a "special case" link.

Seven Machos, that whole turing test thing I said?

I take it back.

MikeinSC said...

Victoria Toensing, who helped write the law (and, thus, clearly knows it better than you RC) has said Plame didn't remotely qualify as covert.

Also --- if she were covert, why WASN'T Armitage charged? It'd be pretty open and shut, right?
-=Mike

Seven Machos said...

reality check: Why are you making this goofy argument? No one is censoring anyone.

That said, a censor is an official, and censorship is an official act with implications of government power.

Here are some hypotheticals:

1. If I tell you to shut up and get out of my house, that's not censorship. That's exercising property rights.

2. If you take a video camera to a restaurant and are asked to leave, that's not censorship.

3. If your comments are deleted form a privately-owned blog, that's not censorship.

4. If a government official tells you that you can't sing a song, that's censorship.

5. If NBC tells you that you can't say a word on the air, that's arguably censorship because NBC's right to its "space" is owned by the government.

6. If Fox News tells you that you can't say a word on the air, that's not censorship because cable networks are not owned by the government.

The fact that you don't understand any of this and can't distinguish between censorship and the private exercise of property rights exposes you as a crude and ill-informed person.

Pogo said...

Re: "...you silly meth head. ... Gah! It's amazing you guys can breathe!"

Always a pleasure to hear an opinion from the polite, urbane, and well-informed 'reality check'. On the whole, however, I'd rather have a colonoscopy by an over-tired misanthropic dyslexic first year medicine student with ADD who failed Anatomy.

hdhouse said...

Back to the subject at hand:

Libby was asked specific questions under oath. He gave false or misleading answers. Past that, it is all fluff about who else shot who.

One commenter wrote about "superheated political atmosphere...who would want to serve" ..some truth to that but if you are asked a straightforward question you have a responsibility NOT to lie.

I think there are millions of Americans who want to serve their nation and know the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie.