Sixteen Words and the Trial of Scooter Libby By Jason Leopold

[terip64]

Good read.

:popcorn:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012307J.shtml


Sixteen Words and the Trial of Scooter Libby
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 23 January 2007

Four years ago this month, President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The intelligence those sixteen words were based upon turned out to be crude forgeries. Evidence collected by journalists and various legislative committees over the years suggests that a cabal of White House officials were fully aware that the intelligence was suspect, but allowed its inclusion in the State of the Union because it would help the administration win support for the war.

Not long after the president's State of the Union address, an unknown former US ambassador named Joseph Wilson began to privately question the veracity of the sixteen words. In doing so, he became a target of the White House officials who were responsible for peddling the phony intelligence and driving the US to war.

This week, one of those officials, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, goes on trial, charged with five felonies related to the unmasking of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer, to a handful of reporters and then lying to a grand jury and the FBI about it. These events - the Plame leak, the attack on Wilson, and the prewar intelligence (as complicated as it has become to try to unravel and make sense of) - were spearheaded by senior members of the Bush administration in an effort to protect the individuals responsible for planting the 16 words in Bush's speech.

"At the Center of the Storm"


more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012307J.shtml

[babylonsister]

1. I'm joining you!

:popcorn:

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Sixteen "business" words?

[Poll_Blind]

3. Jason Leopold fucked up, but it was a DUer, not him, that made...

...that whole thing into a much, much, much bigger, nasty drunken mess than it had to be. Just a reminder, mostly to people reading your message and only generally to you, specifically.

PB

[TornadoTN]

6. That is an important caveat to that whole sordid affair

To see it come crashing down on them was a lesson in not jumping the proverbial gun on unsubstantiated claims. I lost pretty much all of my respect for that whole operation when this unfolded.

And like many others said, it wasn't the first time either.

[The Count]

9. I don't think he fucked up - he was played. He may yet get vindicated.

If Rove does fall, we may find out what really happened that day - what negotiations back and forth.

[tbyg52]

26. I haven't really been keeping track of other incidents,

but in the case of this one I have thought, from day one, that he was played.

[KoKo]

49. OFGS....Here we go again.........n/t

[Tin Man]

10. Yep. That's 48 calendar words.

:rofl:

[Bandit]

4. Well I am sure we will get the same people saying he isn't worth reading

I am not one of those. He wrote something that turned out to be not true. He was convinced it was true and supposedly had ample evidence to back it up. He is a good writer though and seems to be as on top of things as anyone else I have read. He did say something though that disappointed me. He said if his source turned out to be a LIAR he would disclose that source. He did not do so. By not doing that he LIED. I find that hard to overlook..

[speedoo]

5. I believe his source was NOT a LIAR.

If Rove made a last minute deal, to avoid prosecution after he was indicted, then Leopold's source was not a liar.

And I believe that's exactly what happened.

This Leopold piece is a must-read. It gives me a much better understanding as to why Plame was outed.

K&R.

[terip64]

7. Thanks! I thought so too. It really helped me to understand. n/t

[The Count]

11. I'm with ya.

[Tin Man]

12. So Fitz made a deal with Rove in order to get Libby?

Fitz threw back the BIG fish in order to catch the LITTLE fish?

:shrug:

[speedoo]

13. You're assuming Rove is the BIG fish.

You may be wrong.:shrug:

[Tin Man]

14. The GJ's investigation is complete. Only Libby was indicted.

No other fish left to be caught at this time.

[speedoo]

16. You seem very sure of your facts.

Any links?

And how do you know someone like Cheney is not the real big fish? And/or a bunch of WHIGers?

[Tin Man]

17. Fitz himself said as much at the press conf announcement of the Libby indictment

"Is the investigation finished? It's not over," he said. "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/Politics/CIALeak/story?id=1259169

[speedoo]

18. Did you read the entire story?

"Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said he was told by Fitzgerald's office that investigators had "made no decision about whether or not to bring charges" and would continue their probe into Rove's conduct. Rove has testified four times before the grand jury and has maintained that he discussed Wilson's wife with reporters on the condition of anonymity and was only trading information that came from other reporters.

"We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong," Luskin said in a statement."

Last anyone heard, Luskin had received a letter from Fitz that Luskin was implying exonerated Rove. But Luskin never showed the letter or quoted anything from it.

So it is quite reasonable to conclude that the letter spells out what Rove must do to avoid prosection, and that he was in fact, indicted.

And, do you still think that there is not a bigger fish than Scooter?

[Tin Man]

19. I read it. And I'm aware of Luskin's statement that Rove was cleared.

And to answer your last question, I don't believe the investigation was able to catch any fish bigger than Libby, mostly because of limitations in the wording of the IIPA, which states that the leaker must have knowledge aforehand of the agent's undercover status, i.e. intentionally expose the undercover agent.

Personally, I believe that Cheney et al didn't realize that Plame held undercover status - rather, they foolishly assumed that, because she held a desk position, she was just another mid-level management weenie. Remember, the original Novac piece didn't make any claims as to Plame's undercover status - it suggested that Plame (the manager) had sent Wilson (her husband) on an African vacation.

And that's why there are no other indictments - Cheney et al certainly blew Plames cover, but they didn't knowingly blow Plames cover; as a consequence, nobody was indicted for violations of the IIPA. In the end, everyone skated, except for anyone caught lying or obstructing in the cover-up. And in that regard, Fitz felt that sufficient evidence (beyond a shadow of a doubt type evidence) existed only to charge Libby in the cover-up.

[speedoo]

21. So are you doing anything other than speculating?

You have no facts that say Fitz' investigation is completed, evidently, or that Rove was definitely not indicted.

And you certainly are not predicting that nothing will come out of this trial, including a mid-trial plea by Scooter. Or are you?

[Tin Man]

22. I have facts. Re-read #17.

Talk about speculation... suggestions that Rove is facing a sealed indictment are speculation. Or suggestions that Fitz is using the Libby trial as a maneuver in a larger Rove/Cheney strategy. Where's any proof of that? But I can prove that Libby has been indicted, and his case is now before the jury. That's a fact.

And that, taken together with Fitz's statement "I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded... 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" it's pretty clear that, as of Oct 2005, Fitz felt the investigation had run its course and was effectively finished.

And FWIW, I'll speculate the decision goes to the jury, and return a guilty verdict on all counts. Fitz won't be accepting any plea deals - no need, he's got Libby by the balls.

[speedoo]

23. The only "fact" about #17 is that Fitz is quoted as saying that.

To go from that quote to what you are saying is speculation. The work that led to a possible Rove indictment was done by that time... in fact people were expecting he would be indicted at that time, so there is really nothing revealing about Rove in that statement, IMO.

And I'm still waiting for your answer as to whether or not you believe Scooter is still the only fish. Libby can get a reduced sentence by cooperating, and that's the reason he could still make a deal. If Fitz can get Libby's cooperation, why would he not make a deal? Libby's cooperation could result in some additional indictments.

[Tin Man]

24. How about we bet on it...

I say this GJ will return no indictments for figures other than Libby.

What would you like to wager? ;)

[speedoo]

25. I don't even know whether the GJ is still seated.

Do you?

And, it seems like there is at least a possibility that no one would ever know. If there is a Rove indictment (and no one has ever proved there isn't) and Rove cooperates as required, we could never know.

Additional indictments could also come as a result of testimony in the trial, or from Scooter's cooperation (still possible). So the GJ is not the only route to indictments, IMO.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Pure Jesus Talk

"We may never know..."

Truly a masterwork in unfalsifiable hypothesis. You've constructed a system of delusion so vast and intricate that you can never be proven wrong. This is fine as a parlor game, but lame as hell when it comes to argument.

[speedoo]

29. Speaking of lame arguments...

where is the proof that Rove was not indicted?

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Asking for proof of a negative is lame

The burden's on you to show that he was. That's why your argument is Jesus Talk. You ask people to show that X DIDN'T happen, or ISN'T the case, at the same time that you suggest the perpetual mystery of it: that it is literally unknowable. That's some old-time religion, friend. Unfalsifiable by your own description. Which is nice and all as belief (you have only your true faith in Sweet Baby Indictment), but not something that anyone should be required to take seriously. How do I know Rove wasn't indicted. Because nobody can show me an indictment, or any evidence thereof. For me, that tells me that he wasn't indict6ed. For you, it is the founding principle of your wacko religion, whereby the fact that there is no evidence at all of an indictment means that he may have been indicted, but said indictment may be sealed forever, and ever, amen.

[speedoo]

36. Ahhh. I see.

I am a Christian, therefore everything I think and say is lame.

I bow to your superior intelligence. For a minute there, I actually thought you had something to say to me. But it's now clear to me that I am not worthy of your nuggets of wisdom.

Do you get off by attacking Cristians?

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. No, I get off by attacking bad arguments

The Christians at least have the decency to know that they cannot argue matters of fact based on faith. This is a clear principle that seems to have eluded you.

[speedoo]

42. What has eluded me is how I have been "proven wrong"

Still waiting.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. You have been proven wrong by not proving yourself right

That's how matters of fact are adjudicated, pal. It happened a long time ago...the moment6 you invented some wacko scenario whereby we will "never know" if there was an indictment. That's the last defense of somebody with no argument, like you.

[Tin Man]

31. At Fitz's press conference, he indicated GJ would remain seated...

...even though the GJ's term was due to expire the following day. If you review the Fitz quote, he implies the GJ would not ajourn until the Libby trial is concluded (at the earliest).

However, at the time of Fitz's press conference (10/30/05), the GJ was due to adjourn the following day - so Fitz must have extended their term for another term of 18 months. This would mean the current term expires April 30, 2007

So based on the above, I'll elaborate my proposition to you: if the GJ returns an indictment against any Plamegate figure other than Libby by April 30th - you win. Hell, I'll even declare you the winner if Fitz files a simple criminal complaint against any Plamegate figure other than Libby prior to April 30th.

How about it?

[Tin Man]

32. Does anybody wanna accept this wager? Anyone?

:crickets:

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. It's like asking people to bet that Jesus will return by April 30

They won't do it. It's the FAITH that keeps them going, not any manifestation of fact.

[Tin Man]

35. Looks like you're right.

I thought I proposed a pretty fair wager, but I guess the "true believers", no matter their camp, are reluctant to put their money where their beliefs are. I guess it's just too risky to apply a measuring stick to one's faith, because the faith may not measure-up, and then what? He/she might actually have to think! :shudder:

[speedoo]

37. Actually, I was about to ask what was magic about April 30.

I would have considered a friendly wager if you had dropped the deadline.

But now I see you are ridiculing my religion, so your intelligence must also dwarf mine, and there could be nothing "friendly" about such a wager. So I'll just pass.

Happy now?

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Cut the martyr act: nobody's ridiculing your religion and you know it

Religion is fine. But religious arguments are insufficient when it comes to adjudicating fact. The only connection to the religious argument is that your argument about Rove is similarly based on faith. You cannot prove it, so you ask others to disprove it. That's laughable nonsense.

But I see that you take every opportunity to shift the topic. So now we're attacking your religion, according to you. Cut the bullshit. Nobody attacked your religion. What I don't like, and I expect Tin would say the same, is that we should have to prove the negative of something you can't prove in the positive. That's stupid. It's not even a good religious argument, but rather one made by children. Grow up.

[speedoo]

40. delete

[speedoo]

41. Quoting you: "your wacko religion".

Go away, liar.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. That would be, your wacko religion of the Rove indictment

Learning how to read helps:

How do I know Rove wasn't indicted. Because nobody can show me an indictment, or any evidence thereof. For me, that tells me that he wasn't indict6ed. For you, it is the founding principle of your wacko religion, whereby the fact that there is no evidence at all of an indictment means that he may have been indicted, but said indictment may be sealed forever, and ever, amen.

Unless you're just being dishonest, which, at this point, seems utterly plausible,.

[speedoo]

47. Guess what.

Whatever you think I am is of absolutely no interest to me. Nothing you've said tells me I should pay any attention to you.

You're not going to waste any more of my time. And one more insult or snarky comment from you will be the last one that I read.

If you'd stop thinking you were superior to me, you might actually learn someting from someone who's experienced far more than you have.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Whatever

[Tin Man]

43. I thought I explained the date selection pretty well in #31

We know that the term of the previous GJ expired on 10/31/05. We also know that Fitz implied (quite strongly) that he would keep a GJ seated until the Libby trial had concluded. And knowing that GJs are typically seated for 18 months, this would indicate that the current GJ remains available until 4/30/07, a date which should also allow ample time for the Libby trial to conclude - and leave a window for Fitz to pursue follow-up charges, or reveal sealed indictments. So that's how I arrived at 4/30/07.

[speedoo]

46. Okay, but ...

The GJ could be extended, or another one empaneled, I believe. And there are other ways indictments could be handed down.

Anyway, I'm not interested. Nothing you have said changes my mind, and I'm sure the same is true for you so let's stop wasting one another's time.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. I love how the people who were proven wrong IN ACTUALITY accuse others

of speculating! Rove was not indicted, period. All the talk about "last minute deals" and other nonsenses from the Leopold apologist camp are nothing but airy speculations, and yet they have the nerve to accuse people who state a SIMPLE FUCKING FACT (Rove was not indicted, as the bullshit artist Leopold said he DEFINITELY WOULD BE) of speculation! It's the fucking world turned upside down.

[speedoo]

30. If you're saying I was "proven wrong"...

please show me where that was done. Only verifiable facts, please.

[Wizard777]

20. oh how to put this

:+ :evilfrown: .:patriot: :silly: There he is stuck in the middle with you. :rofl: It's a Steelers Wheel. Round and round it goes where it stops only Rove knows. Bwahahahahahahaha!

[terip64]

8. shameless kick

[nashville_brook]

15. pass the popcorn...

mmm... poppie.

:popcorn: