Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bob Schieffer On The Libby Case - These Guys Make Themselves More Irrelevant By The Week !!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 01:34 PM
Original message
Bob Schieffer On The Libby Case - These Guys Make Themselves More Irrelevant By The Week !!!
Some Thoughts On The Libby Verdict
Bob Schieffer Wonders If The Verdict Was Worth The Trial In The CIA Lead Investigation

<snip>

...

But, here's the part I don't understand. What the prosecutor had set out to do – what the case was all about – was to determine if someone had broken the law by knowingly revealing the identity of secret intelligence agent Valerie Plame.

Did any of that ever happen? Was a law actually broken? If the prosecutor found such evidence, he must not have found much because no charge was ever filed. We don't even know if she was a secret agent covered by that law.

Nor will we ever.


And...

But when these investigations drag on for years, when prosecutors spend millions of our tax dollars, when reporters are forced to tell grand juries who in the government they have been talking to, shouldn't we expect more for our money?

Shouldn't we at least be told if a law was broken, and whether Ms. Plame's identity was even covered by that law?

<snip>

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/11/opinion/schieffer/main2556750.shtml

Man... I used to respect Schieffer, but I guess that's over with. Is he just old, out of it, or too entrenched in the D.C. cocktail party circuit???

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. that is the spin coming out of many pundit's mouths
was there any mention of the millions of dollars spent on the Whitewater investigation
where no one was indicted, or on Ken Starr and his press conferences or the persecution
of Clinton which newt now states was done for political purposes.

Funny, how doing the Clinton years, the Congress and the pundits were steeped in
morality and a thirst for justice, now an agent has been outed, investigators in
a criminal investigation have been lied to and the grand jury has been lied
to but it's really nothing, let's just sit here and drink our mint juleps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Calls for a Libby pardon are all over
There must be a push on. Same bogus talking points. I didn't know Bob Schieffer was in the propaganda gang. Guess he is.

The one talking point that drives me nuts is the one about how as soon as Armitage confessed the investigation should have stopped. There were two leakers! How could they have stopped at one?

The same Republicans who thought possible perjury by Clinton that was so important that all other government business had to take a back seat. I'm used to GOP hypocrisy but this one still angers me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's too assimilated, having been there way too long
Edited on Sun Mar-11-07 02:23 PM by kenny blankenship
Some years ago, as America's class structure began to develop the enormous rifts it now has, star journalists welded themselves to the rich and powerful class of public figures and behind the scenes party operatives whom they're supposed to report on and scrutinize for the public. It's not talked about much except in books like Anatomy of Deceit, by Marcy Wheeler. You're not supposed to notice or ever think about how pervasive and unconscious bias of social climbers could come to characterize the national press corps. It's supposed to remain a mystery probably. They become celebrities and make millions of dollars and live among and vacation with the powerful but you're never to suspect that intoxicants like wealth and fame could influence them in their statements, sympathies and outlook. It's just a funny thing how when you give a talking hairdo a walk-in closet lined with 1500 dollar suits, a million dollar townhome in DC and 3 million dollar apartment in Manhattan, a guy who's supposed to be an adversary and a public watchdog over you starts to see everything your way: to value and praise what benefits you, and to dislike what hinders your plans and methods. He becomes your pal and a swell guy. All he needs is a taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Is Bob's brother still serving as bush's ambassador to Australia?
Bob has been trying to serve too many masters the past few years.

When witnesses to grand juries LIE, finding the truth in the original investigation is rendered impossible. That is why PERJURY is illegal. Get Bob on the phone; I wanna 'splain some things about cover-ups to him. He seems to have forgot how it all works to subvert justice.

He has the mendacity to complain that the investigation didn't turn up a leaker when Libby was convicted of felonies which SUBVERTED the investigation.

Fuck you, Bob.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Something strange is going on.
All the mainstream outlets are saying the same things. The only question in my mind is are they just so incompetent they don't understand what this case was all about (treason, lying to get us into war, etc.), or are they on the take somehow? I mean, not one person under the guise of
'responsible journalism' gets it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. But This Was The Most Watched Trial In D.C. In Years, How'd He Miss This:
From Fitzgerald's post-trial press conference, responding to a question by (I believe) Michael Isikoff:

<snip>

NEW YORK - Talking to the media immediately following the verdict in the Libby/CIA leak case -- with "Scooter" Libby found guilty on four of five counts -- the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said reporters' testimony was key in the case, but called it "unique," and said people should not assume more cases like this will follow.

He also emphasized that despite reports in conservative media and Web site to the contrary, he was "100%" certain that Valerie Plame was in a "classified" position with the CIA when her name was leaked, although this was not an issue in the trial. He repeated that this was even in the original indictment. "That is just a fact," he declared.

<snip>

Link: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554250

I mean every goddamned cable news network, and probably most broadcast networks carried this LIVE. How'd our 4th Estate miss that one???

:mad::nuke::banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. And Here's The Video:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. They all "get it"..
They just don't want their viewers/readers/listeners to "get it", otherwise they might not vote Republic next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Confronted "journalists"reply, "I just read the news, I don't write it"
Do not assume the person reading the news to the public is anything even slightly near being a "journalist."

The word derives from "journal" and connotes actually writing something!

The "right" question is, "WHO is the ONE journalist writing this for everyone to read?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. WRONG
Olberman gets it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why did Libby make the smokescreen...
and fall on his sword if there was nothing to protect?

Libby obstructed, of that there is no doubt. What did he obstruct? Well, I'm sure Waxman will get an earful on Friday...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. I heard that this morning and felt like banging my head against the wall.
Given this and some of the commentary he does on the CBS Morning show, I think it comes down to this: Schieffer simply has more gravitas than smarts. He looks and plays the part of journalism "wise man" but there's actually no more 'there' there than Katie Couric's got. He uses grayed and grizzled the way Katie uses cute. I don't think he's intentionally shilling for anyone, he just doesn't process the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. ...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. YOU missed the point Bob---Libby was OBstructing the prosecution--Friz
takes his job seriously!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. Schieffer used to go to Ranger games with Dubya
not to mention the other family connections.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. Congressional hearings will answer the question posed by Schieffer.

He asks, "Shouldn't we at least be told if a law was broken, and whether Ms. Plame's identity was even covered by that law?"

Makes me look forward to what will happen when Plame testifies before Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Great Point !!! - Maybe Ole Bob Ought To Be Assigned To Cover That !!!
If he doesn't get it then...

Well... as the British say, maybe he's passed it.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
15. He is not able
to be honest with himself about this. Hence, he lacks the ability to be honest with others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Truth is our most powerful weapon.
He won't be able to run from the truth for long. Perhaps we should write him and suggest he cover the hearing on Friday. Denial 'aint just a river in Egypt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. A weapon that if it doesn't get used soon, I'm gonna go insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. His brother owned Texas Rangers with Chimp and he plays golf
with Poppy. The rest of his show today was good and the questions he asked Biden and Specter were on target. But his comments dropped like a bomb. I posted about it because he was so off the mark it was hard to believe he was taking himself seriously. I figured it was his way of "balancing the show" or showing his Repug loyalty to the Bushies re Libby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. I saw ole Bob...
hyucking it up at the Radio-Television News Directors Association dinner when Ailes was referring to Obama as a terrorist. That should tell you all you need to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. He's got a point
Edited on Sun Mar-11-07 04:42 PM by sampsonblk
I didn't get to see his comments live, but it would be nice if the procecutor would come out and answer these questions. AT this point, there are right-wingers who still claim there was nothing to the investigation. I know the law doesn't work that way, but some clarification, even if only for the sake of history, would go a long way. Especially after all the hoopla and all the money.

He should either say there was no crime at all, or there was a crime but he isn't willing or able to charge anyone with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. the only point he has is on the top of his head...
Edited on Sun Mar-11-07 04:50 PM by Postman
Fitzgerald said that he was prevented from discovering whether a crime was committed due to Libby's lies.


It's called obstruction of justice.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Yup, in a slight way I agree with him.
People's heads should be rolling over a crime of treason, and people want to know "what the hell?"...but all we are allowed to get for our millions is a scooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Yep, Scooter, and a Cloud
...over the VP's ofice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
25. Regarding Valerie Plame's status with the CIA ...
I think this is an interesting situation ... and a 'game' that's being played by the neocons and others. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't believe that the CIA or Ms. Plame has yet publicly established any fact regarding her relationship with the CIA or her duties, if any.

I listened very carefully to Fitzgerald's remarks after the Libby verdict and he was very careful to point out that not only is her factual status not relevant to the case against Libby, the facts regarding that status have themselves not been publicly established. As I review what we "know," it seems to me that we're basing our "knowledge" on what's been reported by people who themselves are not in any official position to "know." Even Joe Wilson has said this - that he's not confirming or denying anything regarding her status. To point out that others have endangered her by reporting that she's an agent is not the same as confirming the accuracy of such reports or any part thereof.

I'm not aware of any declassification of her status of any kind. Indeed, it'd be more than interesting if such a declassification were done since that would bring up even more questions. (Rumors and claims and purported "public knowledge" are not the same as declassification.)

When the neocons and their reichbot enablers beat the drums about whether or not a law has been broken, what they're doing (imho) is daring the CIA to do something (reveal classified data and, thus, separate fact from fiction)) that's not warranted in the absence of an indictment or other sound reason.

There's a big difference, I believe, between a "reasonable understanding" and a verified fact. I think most of us have lost sight of the distinction. Fitzgerald obviously has not, nor have those who're composing their specious 'talking points' relying on putting the CIA into a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-11-07 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. Why would the CIA ask for a DOJ investigation of the leak of Plame's name if she
WASN'T covert?

Why in hell does no "journalist" ever bring up the FACT that it was the CIA that did the initial investigation and made the decision to bring the matter up to the Department of Justice? If outing Plame was no big deal, the CIA wouldn't have requested the investigation in the first place, right?

Why does this simple piece of logic seem to be beyond the grasp of all the idiots commentating on this issue?

It drives me absolutely CRAZY!!!!!! :banghead:

sw

Oh yeah, here's another thing: why does NO ONE bring up Brewster Jennings?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. My God Scarlet... I'm With You !!!
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I'm about to blow a fuse here, so I'll let Larry johnson (ex-CIA\Plame Classmate) explain:

<snip>

Was She Covert?
by
Larry C Johnson

Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse, but a reporter from a major news organization told me today that they are still arguing in his/her newsroom about whether Valerie Plame was covert. The journalist who told me this is a talented, smart person but is still confused about the terms "covert", "cover", and "non-official cover". So here's my gift to confused journalists.


Scooter Libby is not on trial for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He faces a jury because he lied about his role in giving out Valerie's name and obstructed the investigation into the leak. Can you leak the name of an overt employee? No.

The relevant section of the law relevant to the Libby investigation states:

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
So what is a "covert agent"? Here's what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act states:

(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

There are two types of people who work at CIA. First are the "overt" employees. These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee. Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged. Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee. At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA. Zippo!


The remaining category of employee is covert. Covert employees include people who work under "official cover" and people who work under "non-official cover". A former CIA officer, Tom Gilligan, discussed both types of cover in his book CIA Life: 10,000 Days With the Agency. Official cover means the employee can say that he or she works for the United States Government, e.g. State Department, but at no time do you admit publicly that you work for the CIA. You get the added benefit of carrying an official or diplomatic passport. If you get caught overseas engaged in intelligence activity it means you have diplomatic immunity and the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

Non official cover or NOC also is covert but is more sensitive (and dangerous). A NOC does not work for the U.S. Government. A NOC does not have an official or diplomatic passport. A NOC works for a business or organization with no tie to the U.S. Government. If you are caught overseas while conducting espionage activities as a NOC you are screwed. You do not get a jail out of free card. You remain in jail or may be executed.

Now I will write this in big block letters: VALERIE PLAME WAS STILL UNDER NON OFFICIAL COVER WHEN NOVAK PUBLISHED HER NAME. Valerie and I started our career together and both of us were given official cover. But Valerie later took the additional and more dangerous risk of going under Non Official Cover. She became a NOC and, thanks to the Corn/Isikoff book Hubris, we now know she was helping hunt down Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.


Right wing hacks like Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and Byron York not only deny Valerie was covert but also insist that Valerie was not covered by the IIPA because she had not lived overseas in the five years preceding the July 2003 Robert Novak article. But that is not the law. The law states, "serving outside the United States". Although she was based in Washington, DC, Valerie traveled overseas and conducted espionage activities. She served outside the United States during the period 1998-2002 and was a covered person under the IIPA.

If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee who had been sitting quietly at a desk, never venturing overseas, the CIA would not have sent the Department of Justice a letter on 30 July 2003 stating:

the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

The CIA knew that Valerie was a covert agent. But they did not know if the Novak leak was an intentional disclosure. That was for the FBI to determine.

Here is the irony? If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee not covered by IIPA then Scooter Libby would not have had to lie to FBI agents because there would not have been an investigation. But Valerie was a covert agent. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage, among others, put her name in circulation with members of the press. They harmed a covert agent and in the process did serious damage to our nation's security. This may not be relevant to the charges Scooter faces, but it is relevant to our nations security. We now know that the Bush White House was as cavalier with the identity of a CIA officer as they have been of late with the medical care for wounded Iraqi war vets at Walter Reed. And in both cases people have probably died because of their carelessness.

<snip>

Link: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/was_she_covert.html

And...

From: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/victorias_secre.html

<snip>

Second, to allege that there first must be an underlying crime to bring a perjury charge is flat wrong, and every first-year law student knows it. Perjury is itself a crime, period. Under the Grand Jury system, evidence is presented to a panel. If the panel decides that a crime was committed, then an indictment is issued. If not, the case ends. Either way, the evidence submitted must be the truth. You don’t get to lie to a Grand Jury. That’s pretty simple, unless of course you feel that one should be free to lie and suffer no consequence - hardly an argument that should be advanced by an attorney and officer of the court.

To assert that Valerie was not covert is to assert that the CIA operates public branch offices overseas. Victoria, here’s a news flash for you - there are a lot of people in this world that don’t like the United States in general and the CIA in particular. Anyone in the CIA traveling overseas would be as nuts as your op-ed to reveal that association. CIA officers and offices are placed all over the world. I really don’t recall the CIA crest adorning any office or being listed in any embassy directory. Victoria, the CIA is a spy agency, it is full of spies who spy on objects of interest to the United States. There are no non-covert spies.

To add a gloss of legitimacy, Ms. Toensing erroneously cites the law as requiring the covert agent to have had a “foreign assignment,” then concludes that Valerie was not “stationed” overseas. Nice try. The law uses neither of these descriptions as a basis for defining the criminal act of disclosing the identity of a covert agent. The law only requires that the agent have served overseas within the preceding five years of his or her disclosure. CIA officers may very well serve overseas by meeting with secret sources in third countries. The fact that they may be “stationed” or “assigned” to Washington, D.C. does not prohibit them from serving overseas by actually engaging in clandestine operations in other countries and returning thereafter to this country. Would the purpose of the law designed to protect our agents operating overseas be served by distinguishing between the two scenarios? If so, then Ms. Toensing, who claims to have assisted the Senate Intelligence Committee in drafting the law, did a very lousy job.

<snip>

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

FUCK!!!

:nuke:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
30. Law and Order only applies when it involves Democrats
I swear these guys sicken me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC