Naughty Scooter...

[ylexot]

"At a news conference, Fitzgerald said the inquiry was substantially complete, though he added ominously, "It's not over."

Strangely, this is what I found...
"Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But … very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1259935

Doesn't sound too ominous unless somebody wants it to be ominous. Sounds to me like "we're done most of the investigating, but we've got some more in order to turn the indictment into a conviction."

BTW, I've heard back and forth whether or not Plame was covert. It seems to me that if she was not covert, there would be no crime which would mean that there would be no investigation. So, I lean towards the belief that she was covert.

 

[Pete]

Not hardly man, I am just waiting for the rest and the best is yet to come! I dont loath Republicans at all, I think we went to war for all the wrong reasons and I also think it is wrong to out a undercover agent. I know, you are going to say she wasnt undercover, but she was and from what I read, she was more than that, she was the highest level of undercover agent they have. We will see in the end what really happened.

It's a damn good thing that you aren't in front of a grand jury.

 

[Bruzilla]

I just read the whole indictment document, and I'm a bit confused. Looking at all the crap about false statements, misleading, etc., it all seems to me to relate back to comments Libby made to the press, not to the Grand Jury. I didn't see any charges relating to him telling the Grand Jury false information, but rather providing false information to reporters. I'm sure there's something that relates to false information given under sworn testimony, but I didn't see it.

Are we now going to start indicting politicians because of lies that they tell to the press??? If so the Dems had better get their resignation letters started.

 

[Larry Gude]

Racingwolf...

...I have no faith at all that you will read the following but...

The whole thing about it is, now, this trial is going to open up a whole new round of investigations into why we went to war to start with. This is going to bring out into the open all of the things we have been wondering about since the war started, and that is, did we go for the right reasons or were the American people lied to

1. Read the Iraq War Resolution

2. Read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html

3. If you really care check out all the UN resolutions BEFORE W took office and take note of the myriad Clinton comments on Iraq.

There is no case to be made about the war. It was just. It is just. It always will be.

4. Also note that British intel still stands by their report of Saddams attempts at getting stuff (WMD) from Niger.

If Libby is guilty as charge he should be punished as charged.

 

[Larry Gude]

wolfie...

http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=60232

Don't read this either.

 

[FromTexas]

Bush mastermind? What was so rabid about my response? Your
die hard conservative group is in deep darlin' and it sounds like even you in your own squirrelly little way might be aware of it.

Deep what? He lied and will be punished. You do not lie to a grandy jury. But he lied to protect himself from something that wasn't even a crime in the first place. Did you miss the part about how she let all her neighbors know she had worked for the CIA?

 

[FromTexas]

Not hardly man, I am just waiting for the rest and the best is yet to come! I dont loath Republicans at all, I think we went to war for all the wrong reasons and I also think it is wrong to out a undercover agent. I know, you are going to say she wasnt undercover, but she was and from what I read, she was more than that, she was the highest level of undercover agent they have. We will see in the end what really happened.

So how come all her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA before she was "outed"?

 

[FromTexas]

Strangely, this is what I found...
"Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But … very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1259935

Doesn't sound too ominous unless somebody wants it to be ominous. Sounds to me like "we're done most of the investigating, but we've got some more in order to turn the indictment into a conviction."

BTW, I've heard back and forth whether or not Plame was covert. It seems to me that if she was not covert, there would be no crime which would mean that there would be no investigation. So, I lean towards the belief that she was covert.

He wasn't charged with outing anyone. The crime is he lied to a grandy jury during an investigation to find out if someone did break the law. It had never been decided if anyone would have broken the law by outing her. However, if you lie to a grand jury it doesn't matter if what they were researching was really illegal or not. You commited perjury and you mislead an investigation for whatever selfish reason. That is still a crime.

 

[Dixie]

So how come all her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA before she was "outed"?

The FBI interviewed her neighbors. They had NO IDEA she worked for the CIA. Where on earth did you hear that? One of the neighbors was later on the air, he stated they all thought she was a private consultant for some business firm.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fitzgerald to racing wolf:

"Libby’s indictment is a political embarrassment for the president, paving the way for a possible trial renewing the focus on the administration’s faulty rationale for going to war against Iraq — the erroneous assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Just something to think about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801787.html

Nor does this case prove (or refute) charges that President Bush misled the country about the grounds for war. As Mr. Fitzgerald said yesterday: "This indictment is not about the war. . . . Anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against [it] shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."

Don't think so, scooter.

 

[Larry Gude]

Dixie...

The FBI interviewed her neighbors. They had NO IDEA she worked for the CIA. Where on earth did you hear that? One of the neighbors was later on the air, he stated they all thought she was a private consultant for some business firm.

...if you have not heard and read, endless times over the last two years, that Plames identity was a 'worst kept' secret and that most people, expecially reporters, knew who she was long before any Whitehouse involvement, you can not honestly say you've been following the story.

I did here the one neighbor on TV say that he told the FBI he had no idea. I have also heard and read coutless times, starting with Novak in the original column two years ago and including an ex CIA agent on MSNBC the other day that Wilson introduced her at parties, regularly, as his "Secret Agent Wife" or words to that affect.

The facts about this will come out but in the mean time, it is common knowledge that it is said and claimed by those who testified that they thought her identity was common knowledge.

Right now, the fact that NO ONE has been indicted for expsoing her, the original intent of the investigation if you will recall, is proof enough that Fitzgerald is convinced that her outing is a non-issue in his mind.

 

[vraiblonde]

FLASHBACK:

Clinton commits perjury.

Democrats proceed to rip everyone involved (except Clinton) to shreds, calling them stalkers, trailer trash, perverts, etc.

Clinton confesses because there is physical evidence supporting the charge.

Democrats say it's no big deal - everyone lies.

Democrats say we shouldn't be engaging in "the politics of personal destruction" while "our troops are in harm's way".

Clinton is found guilty and impeached, but receives no punishment.

Democrats take that as a sign that no crime was committed.

 

[FromTexas]

Ok, say we take Wilson at his word:

Wilson tells Bradley, contrary to reports that many knew Plame was in the CIA, that only he and three other people knew. “Well, very few people outside the intelligence community [knew she was CIA]. Her parents and her brother, essentially,” says Wilson.

Top Secret includes keeping it from your parents and your brother.

 

[tirdun]

So how come all her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA before she was "outed"?

I keep seeing this and I'd really like to know the source. According to the indictment, she was still covert as of 2003.

Indictment, section 1 part f:
Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Since the idea of a "commonly known covert operative" is somewhat of an oxymoron and would seriously undermine any attempted prosecution, where exactly is this information coming from?

 

[FromTexas]

I keep seeing this and I'd really like to know the source. According to the indictment, she was still covert as of 2003.

The source was Fred Rustmann, CIA agent who supervised Plame for a year at the beginning of her career. He said she worked under extremely light cover and a lot of the problem is the agency never changed her cover status to what it should have been (it was left higher than it really was). He stated that her friends and neighbors all knew she worked for the CIA.

 

[SamSpade]

Right now, the fact that NO ONE has been indicted for expsoing her, the original intent of the investigation if you will recall, is proof enough that Fitzgerald is convinced that her outing is a non-issue in his mind.

THIS is the reason I think the whole thing is just crap. No one is being charged with "outing" her - they're being charged with lying to investigators about something that apparently isn't a crime. So my question then is, how can someone obstruct justice or be guilty of perjury regarding material that is in no way connected to a crime?

I mean, it's one thing to "cover" for someone when they did something *WRONG*. But to give false or incorrect information about something that ISN'T a crime is not a crime, period.

 

[SamSpade]

The source was Fred Rustmann, CIA agent who supervised Plame for a year at the beginning of her career. He said she worked under extremely light cover and a lot of the problem is the agency never changed her cover status to what it should have been (it was left higher than it really was). He stated that her friends and neighbors all knew she worked for the CIA.

I lived next door to a CIA worker when I was in high school. I have no idea what she did for them, but I learned about it when they came around asking questions (I presume) for her security clearance. *WE* knew who she worked for. Now, the *NSA*, at one time - THEY were the super-secret ones.

 

[Dixie]

THIS is the reason I think the whole thing is just crap. No one is being charged with "outing" her - they're being charged with lying to investigators about something that apparently isn't a crime. So my question then is, how can someone obstruct justice or be guilty of perjury regarding material that is in no way connected to a crime?

I mean, it's one thing to "cover" for someone when they did something *WRONG*. But to give false or incorrect information about something that ISN'T a crime is not a crime, period.

From what I've read/heard, the obstruction charge is the reason no one has been charged with "outing". They haven't reached that conclusion because it is believed the truth is was blocked, hence the obstruction charge.

 

[2ndAmendment]

THIS is the reason I think the whole thing is just crap. No one is being charged with "outing" her - they're being charged with lying to investigators about something that apparently isn't a crime. So my question then is, how can someone obstruct justice or be guilty of perjury regarding material that is in no way connected to a crime?

I mean, it's one thing to "cover" for someone when they did something *WRONG*. But to give false or incorrect information about something that ISN'T a crime is not a crime, period.

I think lying to a grand jury is perjury and is a crime all by itself.

 

[SamSpade]

From what I've read/heard, the obstruction charge is the reason no one has been charged with "outing". They haven't reached that conclusion because it is believed the truth is was blocked, hence the obstruction charge.

Actually, I've heard the opposite - that, if they can't get them on the outing, they'll get them on the obstruction part. See, I don't see how someone can CHARGE someone with obstruction without at least KNOWING what they obstructed.

Just *try* to charge someone with lying about something while having NO CLUE what the "truth" is. Doesn't work.