Globe and Mail:
The U.S. Vice-President's chief of staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby has resigned after being indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.
In a statement through his lawyers, Mr. Libby said he was confident he would be absolved of any wrongdoing.
"I am confident that at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated," Mr. Libby said in a statement.
Mr. Libby is considered to be one of the chief architects for building a case for the war in Iraq.
The probe found Mr. Libby lied to the grand jury about his role in releasing the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent, after her husband, a former diplomat, Joseph Wilson, was critical of evidence the White House used to justify its invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Wilson travelled to Africa in 2002 to investigate accusations that Iraq was procuring materials for nuclear weapons. Despite Mr. Wilson's inability to find any evidence to support these claims, U.S. President George W. Bush charged Iraq with doing so in his State of the Union address in early 2003.
Mr. Wilson wrote an op-ed piece challenging the White House that year, before Ms. Plame's name was leaked.
Investigation special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has been trying to determine whether White House officials intentionally leaked Ms. Plame's name to the media or whether they lied about their roles before the grand jury.
Mr. Fitzgerald told reporters Friday that Mr. Libby "gave the FBI a compelling story" when he was first interviewed, saying that after a long series of phone calls, he eventually heard from NBC reporter Tim Russert that Ms. Plame was an operative. Mr. Libby then told the FBI he passed that information on to other reporters, but qualified it by stating that he did not know whether it was true.
"Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004, he took an oath, and he testified, and he essentially said the same thing," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "It is not true."
The indictment alleges Mr. Libby was told at least three times in June 2003 about Ms. Plame's position from government officials, including from Mr. Cheney.
"Let me make clear, there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie (Plame) Wilson," he said, because the information was was passed between people with the proper classification.
But by imparting Ms. Plame's position to the press and then lying to the grand jury, Mr. Libby not only violated national security, but he also incriminated himself, Mr. Fitzgerald alleges.
"At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls passing on from one reporter what he heard from another is not true. It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls," Mr. Fitzgerald alleges. "And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."
Mr. Libby is charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two count of perjury and two counts of false statements.
Mr. Bush made a briefs statement on the White House lawn before leaving for Camp David for the weekend.
He said the allegations were "serious" and that the investigation was heading into the next phase.
"While we are all saddened by today's news we remain wholly focused on the many issues and opportunities facing this country," Mr. Bush said.
The investigation of the leak spanned two years and brought dozens of high-ranking U.S. officials before the grand jury, including Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
Ms. Plame's name was made public in 2003, by conservative columnist Robert Novak.
In challenging Mr. Wilson's credentials to criticize the White House, Mr. Novak announced Mr. Wilson's wife was "an Agency operative," and suggested that the only reason he was given the role to investigate the Iraq weapons claims was because he was recommended for the job by Ms. Plame.
Several Washington journalists were brought under investigation, including New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was jailed for 85 days while she refused to reveal Mr. Libby as a source.
The indictment suggests that Mr. Libby spoke to Ms. Miller on at least three occassions about Ms. Plame's role as an operative.
As was expected, Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief of staff, escaped indictment on Friday, but he remains under investigation.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's investigation.
"If you ask me any name, we're not going to comment on any one name," Mr. Fitzgerald said, adding that the grand jury reserves announcements for when charges are laid, not during an investigation.
Mr. Rove's lawyer was told by Mr. Fitzgerald's office on Thursday that investigators had not completed their probe into Mr. Rove's conduct, two people close to the Republican strategist said, insisting on anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.
Mr. Rove's lawyers were told there still that there are matters to resolve before the prosecutor "decides what he is going to do, so Mr. Rove will not be indicted today," one of the people said Friday.
The lack of an indictment against Mr. Rove is a mixed outcome for the administration. It keeps in place the President's top adviser, the architect of his political machine whose fingerprints can be found on virtually every policy that emerges from the White House.
But leaving Mr. Rove in legal jeopardy keeps Mr. Bush and his team working on problems such as the Iraq war, a Supreme Court vacancy and slumping poll ratings beneath a dark cloud of uncertainty.
Mr. Rove, who testified four times before the grand jury, has stepped back from some of his political duties such as speaking at fundraisers but is said to be otherwise immersed in his sweeping portfolio as deputy White House chief of staff.
The irony can't be ignored. The administration that rode to power on a crest of phony terror alerts and a promise to make America safe, is now on trial for threatening national security. Here's hoping they chuck Rove, Cheney, and the rest of their corrupt cabal in jail.
For a mere moment, I thought Cheney was resigning.
And yea, I find that very ironic too.
Now that that's out of the way, on with my post.
The assertion that 'leaking' Plame's name is a crime is bogus, as she was never a covert operative to begin with (which she would have had to have been for it TO be a crime). 'Outing' Plame would be roughly akin to someone 'outing' their receptionist.
Tim Russert, earlier today on NBC, DENIED the facts as presented in the indictment. He says he testified under oath that he did not receive any information from Libby about Plame as the indictment alleges.
Perjury is one of the more difficult crimes to prove, as it has to be PROVEN that the accused lied intentionally, KNOWING that what he was saying was not true. Sure, perjury and obstruction of justic are crimes, of course. And they are generally charged in cases that involve actual crimes. In this case, no one has been charged with "outing" an undercover CIA agent. As a matter of fact, Fitzgerald hasn't even given us official findings concerning her status. That's very troubling. The prosecutor violated his duties by investigating the facts before determining whether there was a law that could have been violated even if the facts were true.
Let's step back and look at the process; after 22 months of investigation - nearly two years - we pretty much get 'Libby said he got Plame name from reporters, but actually didn't'. The prosecutor had to entrap people into lying to get indictments. It doesn't say much for all that work into determining whether any laws were broken. The point is, a high-profile prosecutor spent nearly two years discovering that Libby couldn't get his stories straight about a non-crime. Moreover, it appears his 'crime' was that he was misleading the grand jury by not revealing classified information. Yawn.
The really sad thing about this entire pathetic ordeal is that this prosecutor could NEVER have brought charges against ANYONE for outing Plame -- because she hadn't been a covert CIA operative within the past 5 years. Furthermore, it would have been easy for any lawyer to prove that Plame and Wilson didn't make it a secret that she worked for the CIA; all of their friends and neighbors knew. 2 years and millions of dollars later, and it ends with a whimper...a very weak whimper at that.
Anyhow, here's a comment from an old Wall Street Journal that turned out to be awfully telling.
Quote:
All About Iraq October 24, 2005; Page A14 ... "Mr. Wilson's original claims about what he found on a CIA trip to Africa, what he told the CIA about it, and even why he was sent on the mission have since been discredited. What a bizarre irony it would be if what began as a politically motivated lie by Mr. Wilson nonetheless leads to indictments of Bush Administration officials for telling reporters the truth." ...
Irony indeed.
*Innocent until proven guilty*
Quote:
Indictment is not the same as being convicted.
It's a pretty sure sign of guilt, though, when you turn tail and run instead of denying allegations.
If it turns out Libby IS guilty, then punish him to the fullest extent of the law.
And Jimro, Bill Clinton was impeached and lost his license to practice law, which, although not the same as prison (which can't happen to a US President), is a big thing. Especially after a lot of years of trying to get the license.
Quote:
although not the same as prison (which can't happen to a US President)
I thought they were going to send Nixon to jail before he got the pardon.
Let me rephrase; a US President who's currently serving in office.
Nah, what I find ironic is that Harriet Meyers biggest critics were the "ultra conservatives"...
Yeah, I actually agree with that. I found that....well, odd, really. Then again, hiring someone who is that close to a sitting president is a very, very bad idea, especially when the person is involved with certain workings that higher ups may not necessarily want imparted.
*doesn't know that everytime she agrees with Jimro on something, a million baby pygmies are slaughtered.....*
About Clinton, and comparison to this, this totally outweighs the reason why Clinton was investigated. Personal, family matter. Matters not to the country. The people showed it, the polls showed it; no one cared but the Senate.
US007 has a point though. From what I've read, she hasn't been an OP in roughly five years...
As much as I hate Bush, Cheney, Rove and friends... doesn't that mark it kind of... well... irrelevant?
When someone works/worked as a spy for a country, they risk their livelihood and in return expect the country not to reveal their "secrecy." It's one thing for the enemy to find out, but for those you work for or trust to "betray" you is quite different. While it may not affect her specifically, it could affect the willingness of others to reveal information. If you were a potential informant, particularly from another country, would you trust them to keep a secret if they're so willing to "out" one of their own? It's that possible effect which no one other than those working as spies can gauge that's actually the bigger issue.
Ultrasonic, Bill Clinton was never impeached.
was that a typo in your post or are you actually serious?
Quote:
Ultrasonic, Bill Clinton was never impeached.
Were you sleeping when the whole incident happened? 
Were you sleeping when the whole incident happened?
You make it sound as though it was something worth paying attention to. Personally I think most North Americans need worry about the whereabouts of their own dicks before they worry about that of Bill Clinton's.
*Raises a glass to Cycle's comment*
I can let everyone know where my pack of sausage is at, but no one would care. Why is it any different when another normal man like Bill Clinton does it? Just because he's president? I'm sure he gets horny, too.
PS: Cyke, watch the lang. ;P
Quote:
You make it sound as though it was something worth paying attention to.
Not really. Just my usage of heavy sarcasm to try and get my point across.
Since no one will explain (or figured out the common misconception), I think you believe that being impeached means "being removed from office." That's not what it means. When the President is impeached, charges are filed and a trial is conducted. Clinton was impeached but was not "convicted" after the trial. That is why he was not removed from office, but he was impeached.
Ok that makes more sense, i thought he meant Impeached as in got kicked out of the office. My bad.
Indictment is not the same as being convicted.
It should be noted that Scooter is the first sitting White House official in 135 years to be indicted. According to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.
In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
Fitzgerald continued:
Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.
What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?
And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter; that he didn't even know if it was true.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.
Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.
He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.
When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.
It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.
In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.
So it seems Libby assumed that he would be safe to lay the blame at the feet of reporters because they would adhere to their ethical code and not out him as their source. Unfortunately for Libby, they weren't that stupid. (Except Judith Miller, and Libby let her sweat in jail for three months before he realized that the jig was up.)
Shortly after Libby handed in his resignation George W. Bush called him "one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known," and said, "We're all saddened by today's news."
I guess this is what Bush was talking about when he promised to return honour and integrity to the White House.
Politics: If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn't a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?
If the charges swirling around Scooter Libby -- that he deceived those investigating a crime for which he was not charged -- seem familiar, they should. Not long ago Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted, not of insider trading in a suspiciously timed stock sale, but of deceiving investigators into a crime for which she was not charged.
In both cases, is justice being served? Or are the prosecutors just trying to justify the time and money spent failing to prove that those charged committed the alleged crime?
In the Libby case, we now have a new Kafkaesque standard of justice: Merely ask someone who gets hundreds of calls a day to remember conversations with reporters years prior. Then, if they disagree with the reporter's notes -- voila! -- perjury and obstruction.
Lost in the reporting of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Oct. 28 press conference was this telling admission: "We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent." Nor could he.
"Knowingly" is the operative word. The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires the offender to knowingly reveal the name of a covert agent. The law was written after a former CIA employee named Philip Agee revealed the name of Richard Welch, CIA station chief in Greece, and others. Welch was subsequently murdered on Dec. 23, 1975, by a Greek terrorist organization.
There was no outrage or demand for a special prosecutor in 1995, when then-Rep. Robert Torricelli exposed a paid CIA informant, Guatemalan Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, in a letter to President Clinton, a copy of which Torricelli gave to The New York Times.
A real undercover agent, Fulton Armstrong, was outed by Sen. John Kerry in this year's confirmation hearings of U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Kerry mentioned Armstrong's name during questioning even after the CIA asked that his identity be kept secret.
Depends on whose ox is being gored, we guess.
Just as Caspar Weinberger's bogus indictment five days before the 1992 election was an attempt to criminalize political differences over the Reagan administration's anti-communist policies in Central America, it's reasonable to suggest the Libby indictment is a similar attempt to criminalize differences over Iraq.
Just how is national security jeopardized by having a different recollection of events than NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert? Like witnesses to a traffic accident, people see things from different perspectives. Memories fade. What you learned, where you learned it and whom you told tend to blur.
One charge against Libby stems from his testimony under oath that Russert asked him if he knew Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In fact, the indictment alleges, Russert never asked him that, and Libby already knew that. Maybe somebody else asked him. Maybe he already knew. Who cares? This is worth 30 years in jail?
Contrast the Libby charges with the slap on the wrist given Sandy Berger. He engaged in a real cover-up when he took classified documents useful to the 9-11 commission, destroyed some of them and then lied to the National Archives about it. No jail time, just a small fine. What was he hiding? Whom was he protecting?
Libby now joins Weinberger, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and others who are guilty of nothing more than being loyal and effective servants of their party and president. Like the "Borking" of judicial nominees, the ongoing criminalization of political differences will only make it harder to attract good public servants if they can go to jail for merely talking to a reporter.
In the end, Libby may be able to echo the immortal words of Ray Donovan, Ronald Reagan's labor secretary. After being acquitted in 1987 of corruption charges in a similar trial by media, he wondered: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
So true.
