CIA Leak case, take 2

[AtomicCEO]

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL POST

 

Link to Story

 

WASHINGTON - President Bush's former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House's role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday.

 

In his new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," McClellan said he was misled by others, possibly including Cheney, about the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the leak. McClellan has said publicly that Bush and Cheney "directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby."

 

The statements prompted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., to invite McClellan to the hearing "concerning reported attempts to cover up the involvement of White House officials in the leak of" Plame's identity.

 

So, I imagine that McClellan will get up there and waffle and dodge like the good old days, despite the fact that he just wrote a book about all this. But there is that possibility that he puts a few more facts out there and the American people get another conviction, and Bush might have to pardon someone else.

 

And some of you thought this was over with Libby.

Edited June 10, 2008 by AtomicCEO

[WaterMan]

Plame's CIA identity was leaked to the news media by several top Bush administration officials in 2003, including Libby and former top White House political adviser Karl Rove. Last July, Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time after being convicted of perjury, obstructing justice and lying to the FBI.

[Skippy]

I think he and Dick Cheney are going hunting this weekend. That should take care of everything.

[dmarc117]

wasteful

[AtomicCEO]

wasteful

 

Not at all, I'd like to set a precedent that you can prosecute the white house for propagandistic illegal activities which damage national security.

[dmarc117]

Not at all, I'd like to set a precedent that you can prosecute the white house for propagandistic illegal activities which damage national security.

 

 

shoulda started with clinton and his china deals. this is all for show. these politicians need to do their jobs, not showboat.

[WaterMan]

shoulda started with clinton and his china deals. this is all for show. these politicians need to do their jobs, not showboat.

 

Seems like someone was trying to do their job until a secret indentity was leaked.

[millerx]

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL POST

 

Link to Story

 

And some of you thought this was over with Libby.

 

Funny... I said the same thing about my NON-POLITICAL POST about Bill Clinton.

Edited June 10, 2008 by millerx

[millerx]

this is all for show. these politicians need to do their jobs, not showboat.

+1

[WaterMan]

I can see saying that about steriods and baseball, but this is a leaked CIA Agent's identity. I can't imagine a too much higher treason than that.

 

BJs are higher treason.

[Azazello1313]

may want to read this

[TheShiznit]

may want to read this

 

But, as you may or may not know, Novak needed confirmation. He just couldn't go out and report this on Armitage's words alone. Now, the CIA has stated that Plame in fact was a NOC....and unless the President himself declassified this information....then anyone...regardless of timeline...can be prosecuted....only if their intention was to KNOWINGLY out a CIA NOC. All one has to do is actually read the guiding law to understand that Armitage didn't know she was a NOC....he knew she worked at the CIA, but didn't have access to know if she was a NOC or not. Cheney, Rove, and Libby had access because their boss knew. They coordinated a media scheme to discredit someone who disagreed with them.

 

Now, before we all get the standard response.....CLINTON IS NOT PRESIDENT......BUSH IS.

 

I distinctly remember voting for Bush in 2000 because he wanted to change and restore honor to the office of the Presidency....and outing Plame does this how?

[Azazello1313]

But, as you may or may not know, Novak needed confirmation. He just couldn't go out and report this on Armitage's words alone. Now, the CIA has stated that Plame in fact was a NOC....and unless the President himself declassified this information....then anyone...regardless of timeline...can be prosecuted....only if their intention was to KNOWINGLY out a CIA NOC. All one has to do is actually read the guiding law to understand that Armitage didn't know she was a NOC....he knew she worked at the CIA, but didn't have access to know if she was a NOC or not. Cheney, Rove, and Libby had access because their boss knew. They coordinated a media scheme to discredit someone who disagreed with them.

 

wow, you really don't know what you're talking about. armitage was #2 at the state department, he had every bit as much access as rove and libby, without question, and his boss was the same as theirs.

 

of course, the real point is that patrick fitzgerald and a grand jury already investigated ALL of this. he found that the only crime committed was libby lying under oath to cover up his involvement -- no underlying "leaking" crime was committed by libby, rove, armitage, or anyone else. now I don't know if the grand jury called mcclellan, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't called in libby's trial and either way he was an extremely minor figure in the whole investigation. now all of the sudden he has all this new info that congress just has to hear? that really leaves us with one of three possibilities:

1) fitzgerald was inept as a prosecutor in not uncovering this smoking gun evidence from mclellan

2) mclellan blatantly lied to fitzgerald to cover the trail

3) this "new revelation" crap is nothing but political grandstanding in an election year

 

judging from the reactions of people who were actually involved in the events (like novak) to mclellan's accusations in his new bestseller, I would say the odds are leaning heavily toward option #3.

[TheShiznit]

wow, you really don't know what you're talking about. armitage was #2 at the state department, he had every bit as much access as rove and libby, without question, and his boss was the same as theirs. No he did not. #2 at the state department does not give them access to the NOC list...that is something that is at the discretion of the President. The CIA holds that list tightly. YOu can do your own research...or pull out of...well you get it.

 

of course, the real point is that patrick fitzgerald and a grand jury already investigated ALL of this. he found that the only crime committed was libby lying under oath to cover up his involvement -- no underlying "leaking" crime was committed by libby, rove, armitage, or anyone else. now I don't know if the grand jury called mcclellan, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't called in libby's trial and either way he was an extremely minor figure in the whole investigation. now all of the sudden he has all this new info that congress just has to hear? that really leaves us with one of three possibilities: Not at all....just because charges aren't brought doesn't mean wrongdoing didn't take place. Remember...READ THE DANG LAW...You have to KNOWINGLY out a CIA NOC.....if you don't know....you can't violate the law. And since he couldn't make the case in court, doesn't mean it didn't happen....it only matter what he can prove under the law....and proving who knew what when is very very difficult.

1) fitzgerald was inept as a prosecutor in not uncovering this smoking gun evidence from mclellan

2) mclellan blatantly lied to fitzgerald to cover the trail

3) this "new revelation" crap is nothing but political grandstanding in an election year

 

judging from the reactions of people who were actually involved in the events (like novak) to mclellan's accusations in his new bestseller, I would say the odds are leaning heavily toward option #3.

[AtomicCEO]

Az's opinion on this of "no charges were filed, so clearly it didn't happen" is as ridiculous sounding today as it was a year ago.

[TheShiznit]

Az's opinion on this of "no charges were filed, so clearly it didn't happen" is as ridiculous sounding today as it was a year ago.

 

OJ was found not guilty...therefore...he did nothing wrong.

[millerx]

OJ was found not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court...therefore...he did nothing wrong.

 

Fixed.

[Azazello1313]

Az's opinion on this of "no charges were filed, so clearly it didn't happen" is as ridiculous sounding today as it was a year ago.

 

something obviously happened, and fitzgerald seems to know exactly what happened as far who leaked what when and to who. the fact that he brought no charges based on what happened (other than against libby for obstructing his investigation)...well, you can draw your own inferences, but I think it might be reasonable to conclude that the prosecutor decided that the facts didn't constitute a violation of the law. I suppose if you want to go on asserting that high crimes were committed, even though a thorough investigation began and ended with no charges even being filed, but you might think twice about whose argument sounds ridiculous.

[AtomicCEO]

something obviously happened, and fitzgerald seems to know exactly what happened as far who leaked what when and to who. the fact that he brought no charges based on what happened (other than against libby for obstructing his investigation)...well, you can draw your own inferences, but I think it might be reasonable to conclude that the prosecutor decided that the facts didn't constitute a violation of the law. I suppose if you want to go on asserting that high crimes were committed, even though a thorough investigation began and ended with no charges even being filed, but you might think twice about whose argument sounds ridiculous.

 

I think it might be reasonable to conclude that due to at least one person being convicted of illegally obstructing the truth, and various claims of immunity from interviews, immunity from warrants, national security, and executive privilege... the prosecutor could not assemble enough evidence to convict on what everyone knows actually happened.

 

But surely every single person who has read your convoluted opinion on this has jumped to that same conclusion, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to point it out to you.

[TheShiznit]

I think it might be reasonable to conclude that due to at least one person being convicted of illegally obstructing the truth, and various claims of immunity from interviews, immunity from warrants, national security, and executive privilege... the prosecutor could not assemble enough evidence to convict on what everyone knows actually happened.

 

But surely every single person who has read your convoluted opinion on this has jumped to that same conclusion, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to point it out to you.

 

I still wonder if Azz has actually read the statute in question....and how hard it would be to prosecute anyone under this statute.

[Azazello1313]

I think it might be reasonable to conclude that due to at least one person being convicted of illegally obstructing the truth, and various claims of immunity from interviews, immunity from warrants, national security, and executive privilege... the prosecutor could not assemble enough evidence to convict on what everyone knows actually happened.

 

you simply don't know what you are talking about. who was fitzgerald prevented from talking to? the biggest hurdle he ran into was that chick from the new york times claiming press privilege or whatever. but he eventually talked to her, too. he talked to bush, cheney, powell, armitage, rove....everyone. again, he knows exactly what happened as far as who leaked what, when, and to whom. he knows exactly what plame's status was, when she was out of the country, when she was "covert", etc. if those facts consituted a violation of the law there is absolutely nothing that would have prevented him from charging it as such.

[TheShiznit]

you simply don't know what you are talking about. who was fitzgerald prevented from talking to? the biggest hurdle he ran into was that chick from the new york times claiming press privilege or whatever. but he eventually talked to her, too. he talked to bush, cheney, powell, armitage, rove....everyone. again, he knows exactly what happened as far as who leaked what, when, and to whom. he knows exactly what plame's status was, when she was out of the country, when she was "covert", etc. if those facts consituted a violation of the law there is absolutely nothing that would have prevented him from charging it as such.

 

Was is everyone either "not knowing what they are talking about" or "clueless?"

 

Query:

 

Have you ever EVER read the statute in question?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

something obviously happened, and fitzgerald seems to know exactly what happened as far who leaked what when and to who. the fact that he brought no charges based on what happened (other than against libby for obstructing his investigation)...well, you can draw your own inferences, but I think it might be reasonable to conclude that the prosecutor decided that the facts didn't constitute a violation of the law. I suppose if you want to go on asserting that high crimes were committed, even though a thorough investigation began and ended with no charges even being filed, but you might think twice about whose argument sounds ridiculous.

 

As Fitzgerald himself noted, it was Libby's obstruction of justice which prevented him from pursuing further charges against those involved.

 

Regardless of the technicalities of the laws which may or may not have been broken, the facts seem pretty clear:

 

For political retaliation purposes, members of the White House knowingly conspired to leak information on an undercover agent to try discredit her husband.

 

I don't know how anyone can defend this behavior with a straight face.

[TheShiznit]

Azz, did you know that you could tell anyone in the press about someone you know who is in the CIA, who happens to be covert(unknown to you) and not be charged with a crime? Did you know this? Really?

[TheShiznit]

As Fitzgerald himself noted, it was Libby's obstruction of justice which prevented him from pursuing further charges against those involved.

 

Regardless of the technicalities of the laws which may or may not have been broken, the facts seem pretty clear:

 

For political retaliation purposes, members of the White House knowingly conspired to leak information on an undercover agent to try discredit her husband.

 

I don't know how anyone can defend this behavior with a straight face.

 

I have this feeling Cap...while the behavior is repugnant and pretty much par for the course from this admn....if Bush declassified this info....which he can do at his discretion....then there was absolutely no breaking of any law.