Libby Trial - Should Be Interesting
 

The trial of Libby is going to be interesting, in a eavesdrop-on-the-ugly-fight-between-the couple-who-lives-next-door kind of way.

His defense is that aides in the White House were trying to frame Libby as the leaker, in order to protect Karl Rove. I think (read somewhere?) that Cheney will be called to testify in support.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/23/national/w091455S14.DTL

White House officials tried to sacrifice vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to protect strategist Karl Rove from blame for leaking a CIA operative's identity during a political storm over the Iraq war, Libby's lawyer said Tuesday.

After Libby complained "they want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Vice President Dick Cheney personally intervened to get the White House press secretary to publicly clear Libby in the leak, defense attorney Theodore Wells said in his opening statement at Libby's perjury trial.

Amazing thing is that RIchard Armitage already admitted to being the leaker and I bet this somehow will get suppressed in Libby's trial. I sure would not want to face a DC jury pool. They are overwhelmingly elderly black women.

OK, so Libbey was going to be the scape-goat for a leak that didn't occur from the person he'd be scaped for. So he lied to protect someone who didn't do anything...

Or do I have it wrong?

How on earth is this going to trial? It's worse than the Duke Lacrosse team mess.

I thought he covered for the guy that committed the crime that didn't occur. No?

If I recall correctly, he's being prosecuted for alleged perjury during the investigation.

His perjury is saying he forgot who told him Plame's name, even though Armitage was the one who gave t to Bob Novak who started all this with his newspaper column. Armitage said he never told Libby anything about it.

Bob Novak should be in jail
I donot care what for
just for being a fool is enuff

any fat guy named scooter is a punk

The Feds admit that Libby didn't leak Plame's name, but want to prosecute for Libby lying about not leaking Plame's name. That makes sense...NOT!

Joe Wilson is the one who should be indicted. This whole thing was brewed up as a plan to get Cheyney or Rove. Now the perpatraitors are not happy because they missed the mark. The plan was hatched, probably by Wilson, to take advantage of his wife's incorrect status as "covert", when, in fact, she was driving a desk in Washington.

That's what Martha Stewart went to jail for.

I didn't know she even knew Plame.

Yeah...That "freedom of the press" and the public's right to know are such outdated concepts and very annoying.

What does this have to do with anything? The public does not have the right to know the names of undercover CIA operatives. BUT Valerie Plame was not undercover AND Libby had nothing to do with her "outing" even had she been considered undercover. Had she been undercover, her husband would have been the most to blame, since he invited attention on himself and how he got picked for the job by writing a grossly misleading op-ed in the NYT AND then LIED before the Senate Intel. Committee and THEN had the nerve to file suit against Karl Rove for "outing" his wife.

Say it with me now - Richard Armitage was the leaker. And because he's "no partisan gunslinger" (Bob Novak's words), he doesn't get blamed for anything here. Because Libby worked for the big, evil Dick Cheney, somehow, he's to blame here. The world has gone mad.

If the info is given to a reporter, it is, de facto, public knowledge. The problem is the deliberate dissemination by a government official of said information. Once given, it can be reported.

So whoever gave out the information or authorized it to be given out is in violation of federal law.

One could say that individual is a traitor.

Then your beef is with Armitage. Obviously, no responsibility ever lies with a reporter who publishes what he believes to be classified info, eh?

There is a lot more to this "inside the beltway" disinformation compaign than has been released so far - interesting information forthcoming during this trial. In point of fact:

(1) CIA has confirmed Plame's undercover status.
(2) Armitage was not the only leaker.
(3) Reporters will testify that Libby gave them the name.
(4) Libby may have leaked the Plame story to reporters (who subsequently refused to testify) before Armitage leaked it.
(5) The "who leaked what when" is all about pushing bad Iraq intel blame between two primary players: CIA v Cheney Ofc.

It's not quite as black and white as some would have us believe.

1) Then the CIA was criminally negligent by letting Wilson write his letter, when they knew it would lead back to how he got the job - recommended by his wife.
2) But he was the one who told Novak, which was the first mention of Plame in a newspaper. Talking about it afterwards was not leaking.
3) No doubt they will. But I'd be stunned if any of it occured before Novak's article appeared.
4) The queen may have balls, so she may be king.
5) Did you believe this before you knew Armitage was the leaker? Or is it the only way you can get back to blaming Cheney. And why don't you think Wilson should be prosecuted for lying to the Senate Intel. Comm.?

Rick:

Certainly, if the information was of an obviously sensitive nature (the actual time and location of the D-Day invasion for example), the reporter must use common sense and a duty to national security. If, however, the information given is not designated by the "giver" as sensitive in nature, then I do not know what the obligation of the reporter should be.

Who did what? I do not know. I am simply stating that, if the information was indeed sensitive, and if it were shared wityh a member of the press, and if the sensitivity was not made known to the reporter, then it certainly becomes a stain on the government official who authorized the dissemination of the information, not only the one who uttered the actual words.

Is there a flaw in this logic?

No, I agree with you there and I don't believe Armitage knew or thought Plame was undercover. IIRC, once Armitage realized what he had done, he told Colin Powell (his boss and best friend) and Powell either told the WH counsel's office or AG Gonzalez. That got the ball rolling here. No journalist I know of would be able to control themselves if handed such a scoop like that, least of all Novak. Also, IIRC, Novak double-checked his scoop by looking up Valerie Plame in Who's Who in America and figured that, since she was listed there as wife of Joseph Wilson, she couldn't possibly ave undercover status. Obviously, the CIA would never confirm something like this for anyone. In fact, I once did a loan for a CIA employee, and I honestly wonder how we verified her employment. Really. But then again, if she were covert, she would have never told me she worked there.

Rick, prepare to be stunned as this trial moves along. I think we will all be surprised about the dates / origins / timing of Plame id leaks. I was surprised when Armitage stated he was the "initial leaker". I don't think he is as sure of that today as he was when he spoke with C. Powell. As I look at it - both sides (CIA / State v WH / Cheney) are blaming each other for doing the same thing. I think Fitzgerald proceeded because he knows Libby perjured himself when asked about leak times and dates.

The thing that I don't understand is if Armitage had willingly admitted being the source of the leak, why would Bush not have just come out and said so? He made this big show of having an investigation, but never acted on what he would have found out rather easily.

The was always about trashing Wilson. Bush never had any intention on getting to the bottom of this. It will be interesting to see all of this unravel as Libby attempts to keep his butt out of jail.