http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial

3/6/2007 12:23:52 PM

Could he be hung for that? I mean, it is a time of war and all.

3/6/2007 12:34:24 PM

I smell a pardon in December of 2008

3/6/2007 12:39:11 PM

Anybody who compromises classified information to reporters like he did deserves whats coming to him

3/6/2007 12:40:30 PM

it wasn't exactly classified.

3/6/2007 12:41:20 PM

what was it, secret? top secret? confidential?

either way, I expect our best intelligence assets (spies) to not have somebody blabbering their names to the fuckin news media of all people

3/6/2007 12:46:16 PM

especially doing it to get at her husband.

3/6/2007 12:47:26 PM

I would hope that Bush's puppetmasters are smart enough not to parden this guy even on Janaury 19, 2009.

3/6/2007 12:47:38 PM

i mean it seems as if they threw him under the bus. so why would they pardon him?

3/6/2007 12:50:50 PM

yeah, him in jail is much better for them than cheney in jail. too bad....

3/6/2007 12:52:41 PM

saves face for the administration. After the election. They pardon him. Easy.

3/6/2007 12:54:06 PM

I doubt this will even stand.

3/6/2007 12:55:37 PM

I doubt he will get pardoned

Just because he is a Repub doesnt mean Bush's camp wants people leaking important data to the media

3/6/2007 12:58:02 PM

It's going to be in appelas until long after the new admin comes in.

3/6/2007 1:01:48 PM

you don't have to be in jail with no more appeals to get a pardon.

Ford's pardon of Nixon came as the investigations were mounting. He hadn't even been indicted of anything.

3/6/2007 1:04:21 PM

ahh, durr

3/6/2007 1:09:00 PM

Step 1: Do something illegal for political gain.
Step 2: setup the fall guy
...
Step 3: Profit!
...
Step 4: pardon the fall guy

3/6/2007 1:28:27 PM

Quote :

"Just because he is a Repub doesnt mean Bush's camp wants people leaking important data to the media "

Are you talking about something else here?

The leaking of her identity was to benefit Bush's camp, and Bush flip-flopped on the leak issue.

3/6/2007 1:40:22 PM

So just to make sure I understand the case correctly, Libby was found guilty for obstructing the leak investigation and not the leak itself. It seems according to the article at least that Prosecutor Fitzgerald will not file any more charges.

In other words, no one is going to be charged for the leak. There's one to fuel the blogs.

3/6/2007 1:47:18 PM

^exactly....keep up guys

libby was never accused of leaking anything

3/6/2007 1:53:17 PM

My god. I hate when this happens; the liars win. Are you hearing what the jurors are saying?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554231

Quote :

"Denis Collins said, "We asked ourselves, what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys....He was the fall guy." He said they believed that Vice President Cheney did "task him to talk to reporters." He said, "some jurors said at one point, 'We wish we weren't judging Libby...this sucks.""

I know that this isn't going to mean anything to the die-hard liberals in here, but this trial made mockery of our justice system. I mean, for Christ's sake, look at what they're saying. It's like the picked up 12 hollywood liberals and told them to go nuts.

3/6/2007 1:53:42 PM

what did you interpret that to mean?

hollywood liberals?

jesus, you missed the whole point

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 2:00:05 PM

Hollywood liberals, i.e. "liberals" that make baseless accusations and state them as truth (as all real hollywood liberals do). Sorry, that's what I'm referring to, and it probably came across as a little cryptic. The point is that their job was to prove whether Libby was guilty, and they're trying to accuse Bush and Cheney of committing a crime, when there's no evidence of that, or anything even implying that. Seems a little ridiculous to me.

3/6/2007 2:05:13 PM

I like how the New York Times put it best: the paradox is that Fitzgerald knew early on that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak case, he admitted it back in 2003, and apparently, what his mistake was not enough to warrant a criminal charge. Armitage was noted for fully complying with Fitzgerald and providing the material he requested. The crime therefore wasn't leaking the name but the attempted coverup.

I suppose in this case, no crime was committed with the leak. In support of this statement, Libby wasn't charged with that desipte having discussed the agent's name with Judith Miller.

I'm not sure what to make of the entire mess. I suppose conservatives will call for some sort of vindication while liberals will insist that it was a coverup, political pressure on Fitzgerald, etc.

We still have the appeals.

3/6/2007 2:06:33 PM

Quote :

" anything even implying that"

Have you been living under a rock?

And I would bet those jurors saw FAR more evidence than you did.

3/6/2007 2:07:14 PM

Quote :

"Have you been living under a rock?"

Enlighten me, sir. Tell me how Bush and Cheney are directly responsible for anything that Libby was charged with.

3/6/2007 2:09:50 PM

libby was charged with obstruction of justice. many believe cheney was directly involved with the leak itself. but i guess we'll never know for sure now, since they threw libby under the bus.

3/6/2007 2:11:33 PM

Quote :

"Enlighten me, sir. Tell me how Bush and Cheney are directly responsible for anything that Libby was charged with. "

You're moving your goal posts mr. conservative, your original standard was just anything even IMPLYING they could be involved:

Quote :

" or anything even implying that"

I'll excuse you this time, because it's such a n00b mistake to make.

Even if there was a clear, direct connection though, you'd just imagine it away anyway.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2007 2:13:48 PM

According to the yahoo story, the jurors were wondering about Karl Rove, not Bush or Cheney.

3/6/2007 2:41:36 PM

Quote :

"I smell a pardon in December of 2008"

ftw

3/6/2007 3:24:43 PM

Yeah, and in the meantime, former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy "Burglar" is free to roam the land.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them. Berger must perform 100 hours of community service and pay the fine as well as $6,905 for the administrative costs of his two-year probation, a district court judge ruled. 'I deeply regret the actions that I took at the National Archives two years ago, and I accept the judgment of the court,' Berger said outside the courthouse after his sentencing. Berger reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors in April to avoid a jail sentence."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 3:30:10 PM

I would actually think less of Bush (I voted for him) if he didn't pardon Libby. Someone takes the fall for your administration, you better pardon them.

3/6/2007 3:31:21 PM

lying to a grand jury is a pretty big deal. you could be impeached for it if you were the president.

ps- when will cheney be indicted for treason for leaking this stuff?

3/6/2007 4:15:16 PM

Quote :

"RedGuard I suppose in this case, no crime was committed with the leak. In support of this statement, Libby wasn't charged with that desipte having discussed the agent's name with Judith Miller."

exactly. I would add it is sad when justice is not equal and blind, but rather if you are attached somehow to Bush then apparently the criteria for litigation is anything and everything.

The jury basically said he was guilty because they percieve that the leak was somehow illegal ( you can glean this from the statement given by a juror today). Yet the judge would not allow the defense to discuss whether or not Miller was covert. If Bush doesn't pardon this guy I will loose all respect for Bush. Bush should have shut that circus down months ago. Stand up and lead already.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 9:05:57 PM

^^ You mean like Bill Clinton?

Quote :

"The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President '...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury' and made '...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence' [emphasis added] in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President '...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice'..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit."

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm





[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 11:49:10 PM

Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached.

3/6/2007 11:51:44 PM

You aren't getting it

Clinton did it

Therefore Republicans can do it without getting in trouble.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 11:57:13 PM

The only reason why Clinton was brought up for impeachment and Bush is not is the Senate does not have proportional representation. All those red states in the middle of nowhere with nobody living in them have the same 2 votes per state as the large population states like NY and CA. No issue is too small for impeachment when conservatives are heavily overrepresented in the Senate and theres a Democrat in office, but start a war on false pretenses and outright lies? Nothing this administration can do is too low to be brought up for impeachment. Nothing.

NY and CA probably have close to 80 million people living in them, but can be outvoted by three heavily Republican states with less than a million people each. Its fair to say a majority of the people in the US did not want Clinton to be impeached, perhaps even a vast majority. This is why having a legislative body not based on population is antagonistic to democracy.





[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:21 AM. Reason : fixed, happy?]

3/7/2007 12:12:58 AM

Quote :

"The only reason why Clinton was impeached and Bush was not "

"The only reason" lol that depends on what your definition of the word 'was' is

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 12:13:12 AM

I'm confused. What do the circumstances of a third party have to do with the fact that Libby got convicted for covering up the White House's efforts to smear a political opponent by leaking classified information?

3/7/2007 12:37:35 AM

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source of the leak--not Cheney, folks. And when you consider that fact, it makes Libby's conviction look questionable. I mean, the jurors didn't even really want to do it.

Quote :

"Robert Novak then printed a piece in which he identified Wilson's wife as a CIA worker -- in fact, her job at the time was at the classified level. Novak has written of learning about Wilson's wife from someone who was not 'a partisan gunslinger.'"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5732395

(NB: This is probably the most liberal source I could find--so some of you won't be like, "Fox News?! OH NOES! .)

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:58 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 12:50:41 AM

Quote :

"In Hubris, Isikoff and Corn suggest that Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State in 2003, may be the missing link in the story that has been called "Plamegate.""

Well, thats a slam dunk. I'm convinced.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 1:12:26 AM

^ You're fucking thick, man. ARMITAGE ADMITTED IT!

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday. Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer. The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery. In recent months, however, Mr. Armitage’s role had become clear to many, and it was recently reported by Newsweek magazine and The Washington Post."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html?ex=1314590400&en=371ecd094bbd6ae6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Headline: Woodward, Novak: Armitage Was Leak Source

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371785

DUH! Don't get mad because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about--that's nothing new.




[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 1:32 AM. Reason : PS: SLAM DUNK!!! CAN YOU FEEL THAT, HUH?! CAN YOU?! ]

3/7/2007 1:20:07 AM

One more thing: If Bush eventually chooses to pardon Libby, the Supreme Court has held that someone who accepts a pardon has abandoned his or her claim of innocence--it is effectively an admission of guilt.

3/7/2007 1:41:17 AM

Then why wasn't he on trial? Why did Libby get convicted of obstruction and perjury if Armitage admitted he was the leak?

Something doesn't seem right here. I'm sure that question has been asked before.

3/7/2007 1:44:56 AM

^ First: MAJOR PWNT! Second: It's usually not the alleged crime that gets you, it's the lie about it that does.

If you're ever questioned by federal agents--and soon probably even SBI (such legislation has been proposed)--DON'T SAY SHIT! CALL A LAWYER--IMMEDIATELY!

Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) wants to make lying to a State Bureau of Investigation agent a felony.

http://www.ncdp.org/node/1576?PHPSESSID=c81c47e999aa7e33a4b489b9864939e9

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 1:57 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 1:48:02 AM

Well, it was an old article and missed the date on it and also it mentioned a "forthcoming book" so I was a bit confused as to what had happened. But if you want to characterize it as a pwnt, I'm still not sure that Armitage isn't just being the fall guy or that the buck stops there.

3/7/2007 1:55:45 AM

Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted of "having a bad memory."

Richard Armitage admits he was the source. Libby says "he can't remember." He's found guilty. May get 20 - 25 years.

Sandy Berger steals from the National Archvives by putting documents in his underwear, throwing them away, then "having a bad memory as to where he put those documents." 50 hours of community service.

Quote :

"One more thing: If Bush eventually chooses to pardon Libby, the Supreme Court has held that someone who accepts a pardon has abandoned his or her claim of innocence--it is effectively an admission of guilt."

I don't think that's true. I think a Presidential pardon essentially erases everything. It is as if nothing ever happened.

3/7/2007 8:15:53 AM

Quote :

"Oeuvre: Richard Armitage admits he was the source. Libby says "he can't remember." He's found guilty. May get 20 - 25 years. Sandy Berger steals from the National Archvives by putting documents in his underwear, throwing them away, then "having a bad memory as to where he put those documents." 50 hours of community service."

Quote :

""I deeply regret the actions that I took at the National Archives two years ago, and I accept the judgment of the court," Berger said outside the courthouse after his sentencing. Berger reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors in April to avoid a jail sentence."

Quote :

"Libby's fate remains unclear. He faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced June 5, but his federal sentencing guidelines are much lower. His lawyers promised to ask for a new trial and said they'll ask that Libby remain free while any appeals are fought. "We have every confidence Mr. Libby ultimately will be vindicated," defense attorney Theodore Wells said. He said Libby was "totally innocent and that he did not do anything wrong.""

Obviously both crimes have different penalties (Libby sells crack; Berger, blow.), and caving in, admitting guilt, and apologizing gets you better results than walking around like an asshole, claiming total innocence.

3/7/2007 9:09:59 AM

^^ You're wrong.

^ You're a liberal apologist.

3/7/2007 10:32:11 AM