Libby Guilty on 4 of 5 Charges

[A-Fletch]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070306/D8NMQ0E02.html

Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Case

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

[A-Fletch]

Well I think this is pretty much the last nail in the coffin for the Bush Administration.

[Antigone]

Is Fitzy gonna charge all the witnesses he called that couldn't remember everything they said to the Grand Jury and who's testimony differed from recollection to recollection? What a farce this whole thing has been.

[dPrasse]

Is Fitzy gonna charge all the witnesses he called that couldn't remember everything they said to the Grand Jury and who's testimony differed from recollection to recollection? What a farce this whole thing has been.

Nah ... that would take some work ...

Just like Clinton ... "I can't recall "....

[Rhino]

More info at this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256965,00.html

The jury seems to have been quite confused.

[Republican_Legion]

Another brain dead idiot jury like the one for the Andrea Yates and OJ Simpson.

[dPrasse]

FITZGERALD IS AN INCOMPETENT BOOB ...

Long after the investigation began, it was revealed that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, an administration member who opposed the war, was the first to leak Plame's name to the media. Armitage was never charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which punishes those who out secret agents.

Armitage is the one needing to be charged ....

On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak. .[16] Armitage claims that Fitzgerald had originally asked him not to discuss publicly his role in the matter ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage

Seems as though Fitzgerald is the one guilty of a "cover his ass up " , not Scooter ....

lets free Scooter and charge Fitzgerald !

[Antigone]

More info at this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256965,00.html

The jury seems to have been quite confused.

That is an understatement. I don't think any of them knew their ass from their elbow. They were so confused they couldn't even figure out what Fitzy was trying to prove. That should have told them right there most of the case was bogus to begin with. Then when your witnesses can't even remember what they said in an earlier conversation/testimony, that should also tell you something.

[A-Fletch]

I don't see what the point of even talking about it is. The liberal media is going to give 90% of the public the wrong impression. Hell I just saw Chris Mathews saying that the conviction had to do with Cheney taking the country to war. Even though this has nothing to do with Bush, it's just one more thing to solidify his second term as one of the most ineffectual in U.S. history.

[dPrasse]

Mathews is in the same intelligence league as Maher ... Partial Birth Abortion Survivor ... PBAS ...

[Rhino]

.....it's just one more thing to solidify his second term as one of the most ineffectual in U.S. history.Hardly. Study your history more. Or did you mean in the minds of the revisionists? That I would concede, but that would have been true regardless of the outcome of this case.

[A-Fletch]

I meant in the eyes of public perception. Of course it's not what I think personally, but it's what people will remember it as. Especially those who weren't alive or paying attention at the time.

[PaulRevere]

NY Times plasters top secret information all over its front pages about the fed's electronic eavesdropping of terrorists.
Bush response: effectively nothing

NY Times plasters top secret information all over its front pages about the fed's financial tracking of terrorist money.
Bush response: effectively nothing

Sandy Berger steals classified documents from the National Archives
Bush response: effectively nothing

Two Border Patrol agents convicted for 11 years for defending our border against a known drug dealer.
Bush response: nothing

Scooter Libby convicted by a zealous, ideologically motivated prosecutor and an easily-confused sub-average intelligence jury.
Bush response: effectively nothing.

He and his administration have turned into the biggest bunch of losers only outdone in US history only by the Carter administration. Bush's second term is like watching your team getting their asses kicked up and down the field in the Super Bowl. You just want the game to get over so the coach and his players can leave the field, hopefully to never be heard from again.

[dPrasse]

Bush's second term is like watching your team getting their asses kicked up and down the field in the Super Bowl. You just want the game to get over so the coach and his players can leave the field, hopefully to never be heard from again.

Comparing Bush to Rex Grossman ?!? :lol:

[PaulRevere]

"He (Bush) said that he respected the jury's verdict. He said he was saddened for Scooter Libby and his family,"
Oh, STFU you gutless wonder! Lead, follow, or GTF out of the way!

[dPrasse]

Oh, STFU you gutless wonder! Lead, follow, or GTF out of the way!

Milk Toast .... neither warm nor cold ....

[terri]

just called the White House begging for a pardon for Libby. Call.

[A-Fletch]

just called the White House begging for a pardon for Libby. Call.


That'll NEVER happen. Unless it's on Bush's last day in office.

[Patrick Henry]

That'll NEVER happen. Unless it's on Bush's last day in office.

As part of the Clinton Rehabilitation Project, can Bush undo Clinton's impeachment on his last day in office? Would he, if he could?

[Naturalized-Texan]

The Libby verdict was one of the worst miscarriages of justice that I have ever seen.

[d'urville]

Bush probably will do nothing about this verdict, he doesn't want to displease his new Congress.

Libby was technically convicted for not remembering a memo given to him over a decade ago, but the real crime was that he'd worked for Dick Cheney.

[maxparrish]

The Libby verdict was one of the worst miscarriages of justice that I have ever seen.

Yep, by a DC jury that didn't even know (hours before the announcement) what was and was not a crime. They were so polluted by the judges catering to Fitzgerald's grand-standing about damage to National Security WHILE banning Libby's attorney's from pointing out that there was no original crime, covert status, etc. makes this an example of what is wrong with our country.

No wonder Thompson does not want to run, its obvious that democratic prosecters are running amoke and that any pub is going to land in jail if aspire to anything other than kissing the Jackass hind-end.

Meanwhiel WHAT THE F' IS HAPPENING WITH COLD CASH JEFFERSON? WHAT BULLSHIT IS GOING ON AFTER TWO YEARS OF INVESTIGATION AND MARKED BILLS AND VIDEOTAPE OF HIM TAKING BRIBES?

[BuckeyeMike]

That'll NEVER happen. Unless it's on Bush's last day in office.


I'm hearing now that Harry Reid wants Bush to promise NOT to pardon Libby.
Now just who the eff does Reid think he is? Georgie can pardon whoever the hell he pleases......but more than likely won't in this case....I can almost hear the Mortimer Snerd like "ohhh okay" again! And just who the eff did blow job Billy pardon without a peep outta those effen dems!

[Patriot Heart]

Another lamb sacrificed on the altar of what exactly I do not know. When the hell does it end?

[d'urville]

I'm hearing now that Harry Reid wants Bush to promise NOT to pardon Libby.
Now just who the eff does Reid think he is? Georgie can pardon whoever the hell he pleases......but more than likely won't in this case....I can almost hear the Mortimer Snerd like "ohhh okay" again! And just who the eff did blow job Billy pardon without a peep outta those effen dems!

Ted Kennedy has already "warned" Bush not to:


"President Bush should now pledge that he will not pardon Scooter Libby," scolded Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy shortly after Libby was convicted on Tuesday of obstructing justice and lying to investigators.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601030.html

You'd think Scooter Libby had drowned somebody or something.

[BuckeyeMike]

Ted Kennedy has already "warned" Bush not to:

what the hell is that POS murderer gonna do if he does?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601030.html

You'd think Scooter Libby had drowned somebody or something.,

Yes, one would be prone to such a thought.

[Air-Warrior]

WTH does the jury foreman (or spokesman) mean when he said "we stated from the beginning we thought he was innocent"...but then found him guilty anyway. I get the point that they feel he's the fall guy for somebody else...but that's not a reason for a jury to convict a guy you supposedly think is innocent.

[DesertFox]

Bush will roll over and die. I have no respect for him anymore.

[DoctorDoom]

Another lamb sacrificed on the altar of what exactly I do not know. When the hell does it end?Never. The treasonous scuim will not relent until America becomes a commnunist dictatorship with them in control of everything. And then, when one speaks an unkind word, s/he will be shot.

The demonic spirit of Saddam lives in the cold, inhuman hearts of the RATs

[Wyatt_Junker]

Bush probably will do nothing about this verdict, he doesn't want to displease his new Congress.


What the GOP should be doing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfFvKyLrGYc).

What the GOP is doing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-JVNzII2U&mode=related&search=).

[PaulRevere]

I have the feeling the fix was in before the trial began. I suspect that Fitzgerald's team profiled the jury members before selecting them, and Libby's team stupidly thought that they were playing on an even field.

[Antigone]

WTH does the jury foreman (or spokesman) mean when he said "we stated from the beginning we thought he was innocent"...but then found him guilty anyway. I get the point that they feel he's the fall guy for somebody else...but that's not a reason for a jury to convict a guy you supposedly think is innocent.

You mean Russerts neighbor?

His name is Denis Collins, he's a former assistant -- reporter who worked with Bob Woodward and was a neighbor of Tim Russert's, he nonetheless made it onto the jury.


The very same Denis Collins who said it came down to who to believe...Libby or Russert?

COLLINS: The primary thing that convinced us on most of the counts was the conversation alleged conversation with Russert. It was either false, which some of us believe it never happened.

Again.....what a farce this whole "trial" was. Wasn't the whole purpose for Fitzy to find out WHO leaked Valerie Secret Squirrel Plame's name?? If so, he knew that months before Libby even went to the Grand Jury. He KNEW Armitage leaked it yet told Armitage to keep it quiet. He set Libby up. He called him to testify so he could find out who leaked her name when he already knew who did it. This whole thing stinks like a weak old gut pile. :flame:

[A-Fletch]

I think it really pissed off the judge (and probably the jury too) when Libby didn't testify. He probably should have.

[maxparrish]

I have the feeling the fix was in before the trial began. I suspect that Fitzgerald's team profiled the jury members before selecting them, and Libby's team stupidly thought that they were playing on an even field. Actually what I heard is that the Washington DC jury pool is so heavily polluted by loyal democratics and bush haters that Libby's attorneys ran out of challenges - having had to reject so many dubious characters.

So by the time this guy (and others) came up, they had ran out of challenges.

Libby could never have gotten a fair trial in DC, it is statistically impossible.

[DoctorDoom]

Exactly right. It would be akin to a Christian accused of preaching the Gospel getting a fair trial in Riyadh.

[Antigone]

If you have the stomach for it, Denis Collins has a "delightful" little exclusive at the Huffington Post (barf) called Inside the Jury Room. Ugh. This guy is an idiot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/libby/?p=1 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/libby/?p=1)

[terri]

Actually what I heard is that the Washington DC jury pool is so heavily polluted by loyal democratics and bush haters that Libby's attorneys ran out of challenges - having had to reject so many dubious characters.

So by the time this guy (and others) came up, they had ran out of challenges.

Libby could never have gotten a fair trial in DC, it is statistically impossible.

Why the hell didn't his attorneys move for a change of venue?

As to miscarriage of justice, we have Sandy Burger stealing classified documents in his pants! And what happens to him, a slap on the wrist. I called the White House begging that the President pardon Scooter Libby. Will it happen? Will the President I back with my whole heart do the gutsty thing? Sadly, I think not. He'll crumble and let the sharks feast.

Where the Hell does Scooter Libby go to get his good name back?

What good does it do our movement to continue taking the high road? Oh sure we keep our principals and our morals, but that's about it. It's like the old cliche, Nice guys finish last.

I'm sick. I'm just plain sick.

[Patrick Henry]

Why the hell didn't his attorneys move for a change of venue?

As to miscarriage of justice, we have Sandy Burger stealing classified documents in his pants! And what happens to him, a slap on the wrist. I called the White House begging that the President pardon Scooter Libby. Will it happen? Will the President I back with my whole heart do the gutsty thing? Sadly, I think not. He'll crumble and let the sharks feast.

Where the Hell does Scooter Libby go to get his good name back?

What good does it do our movement to continue taking the high road? Oh sure we keep our principals and our morals, but that's about it. It's like the old cliche, Nice guys finish last.

I'm sick. I'm just plain sick.

You are dead-on. That S.O.B. Sandy Burglar gets caught actually breaking the law and he gets nothing. There's no comparrison between the two cases.

GOP leadership, and this administration, are compelled for some reason to capitualate to the Devil. All in the name of getting along or 'please like us!'

Time after time, gutless Republicans are rewarded for their efforts with episodes like the Libby case.

[d'urville]

Okay, I know this was a Washington D.C. jury, but can anyone explain this to me:

LIBBY JUROR: PARDON HIM
Wed Mar 07 2007 19:21:48 ET

MSNBC host Chris Matthews spoke with Libby juror Ann Redington on HARDBALL. Juror [#10] says she would support a Bush pardon for Libby.

Transcript:

Chris: You're for a pardon out of sympathy for the defendant.

Ann: Yeah, I think in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.

Chris: Which is the leaking of a CIA agents name.

Ann: Exactly.

End


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

But she just voted to convict him of four felony counts yesterday???

A clip and a transcript: http://newsbusters.org/node/11260

His bias is showing:

Matthews: "what did you make of the prosecutor's closing summation where he said 'the Vice-President is under a cloud'?"

Redington: "Rhetoric."

Matthews:"God, you're tough. You're great. Rhetoric. God I like the way you separate the wheat from the chaff. You've decided on the wheat, and the wheat is a conviction, but you cry for this guy."

??? So the chaff is the pardon?

[PaulRevere]

Initial comments coming from the jury indicated that they agreed that Libby was a scapegoat, and that it was Cheney who should have been on trial. It's like they were recruits from the ACLU and DNC on that jury.

[dPrasse]

All this wailing about Libby this , Cheney that ... the real leakers are Armitage and her hubby ...

[Wyatt_Junker]

What good does it do our movement to continue taking the high road? Oh sure we keep our principals and our morals, but that's about it.

Actually, 'taking the high road' invalidates your principles and morals every time.

Morals are honored by destroying your enemy. Whenever a US flying ace got a little thrill about hammering out a MiG or a Zero, our morals were apparent. When we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our morals were clearer than they've ever been. And when we deball democrats like a streetfighter, kneeing them in the crotch, our morals praise us every step of the way.

The 'high road' is and has always been rhetorical bullshit.

[terri]

Actually, 'taking the high road' invalidates your principles and morals every time.

Morals are honored by destroying your enemy. Whenever a US flying ace got a little thrill about hammering out a MiG or a Zero, our morals were apparent. When we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our morals were clearer than they've ever been. And when we deball democrats like a streetfighter, kneeing them in the crotch, our morals praise us every step of the way.

The 'high road' is and has always been rhetorical bullshit.

You make an interesting observation. In all honesty I'm not sure how to respond. I'd like to think that Enola gay was a last resort to keep our men alive and our country safe. I think that's what you meant too. A lib would take great delight in turning you into another hate monger. Keep up the good work.

[NowhereMan]

My impression was that the jurors didn't think that Libby had actually been involved in anything illegal but had done enough in helping to cover it up that he had made it impossible to figure out what had actually been done. Thus the people who had committed crimes couldn't be prosecuted.

Which is the precise reason why things like obstruction of justice and perjury are crimes, the jury believed that he deliberately misled the investigation to protect others, specifically Cheney et al and thus he was getting boned because someone else had decided to commit crimes.

[Timberwolf]

My impression was that the jurors didn't think that Libby had actually been involved in anything illegal but had done enough in helping to cover it up that he had made it impossible to figure out what had actually been done. Thus the people who had committed crimes couldn't be prosecuted.
My apologies, but that makes no sense whatsoever. How CAN one cover up something if it wasn't illegal? EVERYONE from the prosecutor on down to you and me KNOWS it was Wilson and Armitage.

Which is the precise reason why things like obstruction of justice and perjury are crimes, the jury believed that he deliberately misled the investigation to protect others, specifically Cheney et al and thus he was getting boned because someone else had decided to commit crimes.
If one is NOT involved in anything illegal, one CANNOT mislead an investigation!!! Apparently he didn't KNOW that Armitage was the leak...where's the crime in that?

[Wyatt_Junker]

I'd like to think that Enola gay was a last resort to keep our men alive and our country safe.


IOW, moral. It was the high road. And even beyond that, realizing that Japan had hid its military infrastructure within civilian centers, the paired act of decimation was absolutely necessary especially when considering the pride & honor inherent among the unyielding cult of emperor worship. Honor never surrenders. Japan needed an excuse to surrender and that excuse had to be dramatically overwhelming considering that particular culture. I am sure the Japanese elites were thrilled that we dropped those bombs even though you will never hear it said. Honor, that kind of warped honor, required an absolutely clear reason to surrender in order to save face. Talk about a causus belli? How about a causus surrendii?

And for that, I praise God that we had men who had more courage than I ever would. Men who had the ability to wrestle with their own conscience and, yes, overcome it, for the good of their own citizens. A kind of exponential morality that begins to yaw upwards as it fights even against itself and would seem to contradict itself, yet holds on for what it knows is right yet cannot explain(even against its own theology), that is the rarest kind of morality. The faith of Abraham. To save your fellow man when it means killing another man, you have to recognize the innocence of one when weighed against the other and extract them out from among the rest. It seems like irony. It is not. It is a complete clarity that pacifists do not dare approach for they enjoy the easy life of cliche and being a simpleton and then have the audacity to live on the backs of the comfort our soldiers provide like a suckerfish. Morality must make a choice always, for in not making a choice, you have already made one.

Atomizing Japan in WW2 should be made into a beer commercial. It was a reason to celebrate then and it is a reason to celebrate now. I do not mourn deaths that cheered for fascism. I am glad that they were the excuse the leadership needed to wave their white flag. If this sounds like 'hate', it is because I love. I love everything that is good. I preferred US soldiers to Japanese ones, yes, this is true. I preferred our language to theirs, also true. I prefer the Filet O' Fish to sushi, apple pie to wasabi ice cream and concerts to karaoke.

Oh yeah, I also prefer democracy to gay ass emperor worship and the clowns who parroted it at the time.

I want to quit apologizing. Is that okay? I want to own my history and wear it proudly. I am an American and I don't care anymore. Even our mistakes, I want to stop the chronic introspection. I'm tired of it. I'm so tired of hearing about slavery that now I'm starting to go the other way and say 'why the hell not?' not because I want slavery anymore, but because I want to start a forest fire in the rhetoric of today's media prison.

Somebody was weepy about the WW2 Japanese internment? Who gives a shit? I'm tired. It was a good thing. We don't need to apologize anymore. We don't need to give money to people to settle the score anymore. We don't need to let indians open up tax free shelters called casinos anymore. We don't need to keep recreating our own history today through the lens of an inverse, politically correct morality that wasn't around back then. We weren't sensitive to any of these issues back then. We are now... too far and too much, and I'm tired. I'm over it.

A lib would take great delight in turning you into another hate monger.

And (apparently) that affects you, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. It must carry some weight with you, some significance as it occupies a corner of your mind. Why?

Or, better, why is it relative to the discussion at all? If evil calls me 'hate', I am pleased. If assholes say 'I stink', then I must smell like roses. If dirt says I need to 'clean up', well then I guess I'm Mr. Hygiene.


Keep up the good work.

:smirky:

[dPrasse]

Japan needed an excuse to surrender and that excuse had to be dramatically overwhelming considering that particular culture. I am sure the Japanese elites were thrilled that we dropped those bombs even though you will never hear it said.

Very true ... the Military leaders were still not in favor of surender ... they wanted to fight on , killing 10's of thousands of American AND Japanese soldiers ...

The devastation gave , as Wyatt said , a "noble" reason to stop fighting and save face ...

Atomizing Japan in WW2 should be made into a beer commercial.

At least made into a US Postal stamp ... oh , thats right BJ Clintoon killed that one ...

[

[TheIrishman]

February 22, 2007
Bait and switch and trap: The real story behind the Libby Trial

Clarice Feldman
Early in the Fitzgerald case I wrote an article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_wilson_gambit.html) on "The Wilson Gambit" in which I said,

"The Wilson Gambit was a stealth operation undertaken outside normal procedures and supervision, used as a political weapon, complete with lies spread by a cooperative media establishment interested in bringing down a leader and his policies which they detest"
"Azaghal", a former law enforcement officer and regular Just One Minute poster has taken a close look at what we learned as the Libby trial proceeded and concludes in an email to me that my view has been born out:


"I've been puzzling over the circumstances surrounding the referral letter that CIA sent to DoJ in what is commonly referred to as the Plame case. My puzzlement arises particularly in light of what Victoria Toensing wrote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705.html) in the Washington Post on 02/18/2007. First, here are four statements relating to the referral:

Toensing in WaPo:
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derrierre.

The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure. [emphasis added]
Judge Reggie Walton to the trial jury:
Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article (http://www.americanthinker.com/cgi-bin/at-admin/article%20http:/article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTdlMmE3MDkzZTkzZDMzZjgzMWJiNWY4MTk3ZmMzZTU=%20 ) by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007) [emphasis added]
Team Fitzgerald to Team Libby:
But in a letter to the Libby team last Tuesday, Fitzgerald's deputy, Kathleen Kedian, said the special prosecutor will not give up the referral and that Libby simply did not need to know what was in it. "After consultation with the CIA, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable," Kedian wrote. "The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby." (From an article (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602270808.asp) by Byron York, NR, 02/27/2006) [emphasis added]
Deputy AG Comey to Special Counsel Fitzgerald, 12/20/2003:
I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity...
What can we draw from these four statements?

1. I assume that Toensing doesn't just mouth off without knowing basic facts. She asserts as a fact that the referral was for "a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure." I have to believe she has good information for that assertion, namely that the referral was general in nature and specifically did not address the elements of Plame's status that would allow a reader of the referral to come to preliminary opinion as to whether Plame was "covert" for purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).

2. Judge Walton's statement to the jury would appear to confirm Toensing's assertion, because if the referral had addressed the question of Plame's covert status he would be unlikely to make such a statement to the jury, nor tell Libby's attorneys that there was no relevant information in the referral that would be of any use to them. It seems unlikely that the CIA could have sent a referral regarding the disclosure of a covert officer's identity without presenting prima facie evidence that that officer did in fact qualify as "covert" under the IIPA--the CIA could hardly have said, hey, we don't know whether our own employee was covert but we want DoJ and the FBI to investigate it. Therefore, again, the referral would seem not to have been based on the IIPA.

3. But, running counter to these indicators is Comey's delegation of "authority" (not of "function" as the statute reads) to Fitzgerald, which specifically states that it relates to "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." What strikes me about this delegation is that it makes no reference to specific criminal statutes that may have been violated. It essentially states: here is a factual situation, investigate it. Now, there was in fact a very public allegation that a specific statute had been violated: the IIPA. Anyone who had followed the whole Plame kerfuffle in the newspapers and on the internet would have expected that the IIPA, which was referenced almost immediately after Robert Novak's article which referenced Plame appeared. Moreover, as Toensing knows better than anyone, that statute was written as a direct response to--as a solution to--the problem of unauthorized disclosures of covert officers' identity. What's going on here?

4. The answer may lie in the wording of Comey's delegation. Rather than referencing "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a [covert] CIA [officer's] identity..." the delegation only makes a vague reference to an "alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." Viewed through this prism, Comey's phrasing may constitute confirmation of Toensing's assertion: the referral makes no reference to covert status but only vaguely suggests that the disclosure of Plame's employment somehow violated a statute prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

5. In the event, the investigation disclosed no violations of law whatsoever. Nevertheless, in his closing statement Fitzgerald made repeated references to the possibility that a covert officer's identity had been disclosed maliciously and that people might die as a result--in spite of the fact that the referral letter apparently never referenced covert status as an issue.

6. Beyond pointing up the essentially unethical nature of the Libby prosecution--long obvious--these factors suggest to me that there may have been a type of bait and switch at the heart of the entire investigation. The operation of this bait and switch relied on the public outcry in the MSM about the disclosure of a covert officer's identitity. The reality, if the above analysis is correct, is that the referral letter did not reference such a possibility because it was known that Plame was not "covert" for purposes of the IIPA. The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation--especially in light of what those officials had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation. The bait and switch relied on the public hue and cry to provide cover for turning the White House inside out in search of a crime--any crime.

7. The real targets of the investigation (Cheney, Rove, Libby) would be told that they were not targets as such but merely witnesses. They would be required by the President to appear over and over before the Grand Jury, ostensibly to give evidence to assist the investigation of what publicly appeared to be the disclosure of a "covert" officer's identity. These targets would rely on the Special Counsel's representations because they had not committed the acts that appeared from public statements--including Comey's letter--to be the focus of the investigation. The Special Counsel had deniability in the form of Comey's letter, although all Fitzgerald's actions have revealed all too clearly that they were in fact targets and not merely witnesses. No doubt the Special Counsel hoped that the targets' sense of their own innocence of what was publicly alleged would lead them to reveal some factual situation that could be construed as a criminal violation--or, failing that, become involved in a process violation. Had the investigation in fact concerned the disclosure of a covert officer's identity, the true target would of course have been Armitage. The lack of prosecutorial interest in Armitage gives the game away.

8. Finally, the release of all 8 hours of Libby's testimony before the Grand Jury disclose the inordinate amount of time Fitzgerald spent grilling Libby about the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and when Libby talked to reporters about that. This is a clear indication that Fitzgerald was fully aware that there was no hope for a violation of the IIPA, despite the outrageous statements he made to the trial jury. It is further apparent from the record that the CIA did not want the declassification of the NIE to take place quickly even though that left the Administration hanging out on a cliff, unable to respond to Wilson's charges. Moreover, when DCI Tenet made his July 11 mea culpa he refused to do what the Administration wanted him to do--state publicly that the CIA, not the Office of the Vice President (OVP) had sent Wilson to Niger.

From all the above, it is clear beyond dispute that this entire disgraceful episode was manufactured deceitfully as part of a campaign to undermine and even bring down the Bush Administration."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/bait_and_switch_and_trap_the_r.html