Hoffa v. Saxbe specifically addresses the sentencing question and says in no uncertain terms that Congressional sentencing guidelines don't apply to pardons: "....Congress cannot in any way limit the President's authority to pardon. To accept the plaintiff's proposed test [based on sentencing guidelines] would in effect disregard the principle of unfettered executive discretion by imposing on the President the restrictions in penalty imposed by statute on the sentencing court. Such a result would be contrary to the essential concept of the pardoning power, whereby there is placed in the executive a special discretion to mitigate the more precise demands of the criminal law in a manner consistent with the unique requirements of the individual applicant for clemency. In order properly to carry out this function, the President must be afforded the necessary flexibility to respond adequately to the circumstances of each individual clemency request."

Also, FN61: "Plaintiff has also argued that the President has invaded the sentencing powers of the courts by attaching the challenged condition. But as has been shown above, the President's power to commute, i.e., to substitute one punishment for another, has been consistently held to be within the President's pardoning authority."

What I'd like to know is how this squares with U.S. v. Nixon. How is overruling the sentence imposed pursuant to a Special Prosecutor's investigation less invasive than refusing to produce evidence?

Scote, I'm afraid I don't follow you.

Here is another inconsistency within the Bush administration. Why is the administration firing prosecutors for (supposedly) not properly enforcing immigration laws, while at the same time trying to pass legislation that would basically render those same laws mute?

Scote,

My argument is about evaluating claims of hypocrisy and fairness, not about the law. My point is that it's not hypocritical to recognize a power in one branch of government but to deny that a different branch should also have that power. In other words, there are two questions: First, what factors should influence sentencing, and second, which branch of government should decide what influence which factors should have. I think those are separate questions.

My argument is about evaluating claims of hypocrisy and fairness, not about the law. My point is that it's not hypocritical to recognize a power in one branch of government but to deny that a different branch should also have that power. In other words, there are two questions: First, what factors should influence sentencing, and second, which branch of government should decide what influence which factors should have. I think those are separate questions.

I see where the disconnect is. You see sentencing guidelines as an issue of delineation of power to determine appropriate length of criminal punishment between the branches of government where as I see them in a more general context as mandatory inflexibility--the idea that one sentence fits all and that justice requires that all people receive the same sentence irrespective of mitigating details. Based on that perspective of mandatory sentencing guidelines, the Libby commutation was an act of the highest form of hypocrisy.

I think your analysis, while more learned and deeper than mine, is unnecessarily complicated, though I guess that Occam's Razor doesn't generally apply to law.

And, by the way, "excessive" doesn't explain no prison time at all. Under what standard is no months the right sentence, unless he's not disclosing his entire reasoning -- that's not possible, is it?

But I digress.

And, by the way, "excessive" doesn't explain no prison time at all. Under what standard is no months the right sentence, unless he's not disclosing his entire reasoning -- that's not possible, is it?

You're forgetting about the $250,000 fine that'll get paid out of the legal fund, the 2 years probation, and being condemned to a cushy job at a conservative think-tank for the rest of life. One shudders at the thought of a lifetime tenure at the Heritage Foundation.

You're forgetting about the $250,000 fine that'll get paid out of the legal fund, the 2 years probation, and being condemned to a cushy job at a conservative think-tank for the rest of life. One shudders at the thought of a lifetime tenure at the Heritage Foundation.

Oh, the horror, the horror...

Indeed, I think some of the outrage is engendered by the claim that probation and a fine that other's will pay for you constitutes a harsh punishment.

White collar criminals don't fear fines, IMO. I think they do fear jail time to the extent they ever think they'll get caught, convicted and incarcerated--a thought that nobody in the Administration apparently need consider.

Bush further opened himself to critical analysis when he said Walton ignored the pre-sentence report which recommend 15-21 months rather than 2 1/2 years Walton dished out. Bush seeming finds no irony that he himself ignores the report by commuting the entire jail term, showing Bush's complete contempt for the legal process that applies to regular people.

If President Bush thinks it's important for the executive branch to tailor punishments so that they fit the crime, why is he letting his Justice Department deny that same power to career prosecutors in the 99.99% of cases that President Bush never sees?

This question is a joke, right? 99.99% of cases do not involve Bush's high-level cronies.

Seriously, the more I read about it, the more I think the Libby commutation is a good thing. Besides embarrassing the President and giving the Democrats fuel for just about any battle against Bush, the commutation shows that even Bush thinks the federal system is too harsh.

The cliche that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged has corollary. A liberal is a conservative who's had a family member go through the federal criminal system.

This won't change things overnight, but it gives defendants a little moral authority when asking for a break at sentencing. It also gives critics of the sentencing guidelines a rhetorical advantage they didn't have before. A rhetorical advantage doesn't ensure victory by any means, but it is an advantage.

Well, I suppose my point is that what the President did was perfectly legal, as pretty much everyone agrees.

Would it still be legal if the intent of the pardon was to obstruct justice? After Bush leaves office, and if it were determined that the reason Libby's jail sentence was commuted was to keep him from implicating Bush himself in the outing of Valerie Plame, could the pardon be included in an indictment as a count of obstruction?

I don't know, I think being the subject of an essentially unaccountable special counsel would qualify as "exceptional circumstances"....

Now would be as good as time as ever for Congress to grant judges more discretion, perhaps in the guise of the "Lewis Libby Fairness in Sentencing Act" or some such.

Atlantic06 is obviously right, and that's all the more reason to hold the President to what he says.

The problem is that Bush used broad categories of problems to condemn Libby's sentence, not specifics. He cited the fact that Libby's sentence was based on facts not shown to the jury - which is true for thousands of federal defendants a year. If he had cited specific ways in which Libby's case differed from others, then it would be logical to differentiate the punishments. That's the core of the "political prosecution" theory -- that the partisan nature of these proceedings differentiates them from others -- but Bush rejected that argument when he validated the jury verdict. As it is, the justifications cited, if true, would apply to many others who didn't get any clemency. Unless service in the Executive policy apparatus is somehow more meritorious than, say, Victor Rita's military service (which is pretty indefensible, especially after six years of photo-ops where Bush draped himself in military crowds), Bush has no grounds for saying Libby was treated unfairly and Rita and others weren't.

Byomtov: Heady stuff. Why does anyone think that W. has even a smidgeon of concern about the little people? He's only known rich and powerful people his whole life.

One way to address the "excessive" question is to ask how much time Spiro Agnew--the VP, no a top Veep staffer--did for much more serious crimes. He plead nolo, of course. But that hardly presents us with a problem in making an assessment.

This also obviates the need to address any "they did it too" right-left disputes: Both Agnew and Libby are Republicans. It does seem excessive to me to give Libby 2 1/2 years in that context.

Again, I realize that I'm not a lawyer. I am, however, a historian, and this is the way we tend to think of these things. What has been done in the past? It doesn't mean that one has to accept Bush's decision. But to my mind it makes it rather difficult to claim that the commutation was well outside the bounds.

I'm willing to change my mind if I've not thought through this one well enough. So I'd be interested in hearing arguments on the Agnew-Libby comparison that address the question of excessive senstencing. Any takers?

Orin, respectfully, I find myself agreeing with Scote. If we had a system where there was some sort of back-end executive review of all sentences, and those deemed to be excessive were commuted or reduced, then you're 'separation of roles' analysis might make sense. But we don't have that system. For 99.999999% of people, the judge has the final say. And Bush and his fellow Republicans have been trying for years to tie judges hands and limit their ability to dole out individualized justice.

In other words, it's not that they believe this is a role that should be left to another branch; it's that they believe no one should have such a role in our system.

The pardon power is an extraordinary remedy that was never intended to be a central feature of our criminal justice system. It can't be. Executives don't have the resources. The people in our system who have traditionally played the role of considering individualized circumstances and being lenient when warranted are judges. But in the federal system, Republicans have done everything in their power to restrict and intimidate judges so as to prevent them from playing this role, because they don't want anyone to play this role. It is deeply hypocritical, therefore, for someone like Bush to invoke the exact arguments that opponents of these policies have been voicing for years in order to justify the commutation of a single person's sentence.

Consider that the judicial branch utilizes the Guidelines only with substantial input from the Executive Branch, acting as a party to the prosecution in our party-controlled legal system. The Executive makes arguments to the court as to how the Guidelines should apply in a given case and those arguments typically carry weight with the court. So we can compare how the Bush Administration has typically argued the Guidelines should be applied (especially in similar cases) with the commutation decision here.

"Were Fitz could put Libby in front of a grand jury, Libby could claim Fifth Amendment rights rather than testify truthfully about his involvement in the Plame outing."

Yes and no. Certainly Libby couldn't base his 5th amendment claim on concerns of previous perjury, as double jeopardy attaches. As for other claims, he could get Kastigar immunity and be forced to testify.

Certainly Libby couldn't base his 5th amendment claim on concerns of previous perjury, as double jeopardy attaches.

From my understanding, Libby could not claim fifth amendment privileges if asked if he had committed perjury and obstruction, but he could do so if asked why he committed perjury and obstruction.

Guys, you're arguing that the Executive is hypocritical for using an absolute executive power in violation of the Executive Branch's regulations on when and how requests for Executive action are filed and processed by the Executive's own bureaucracy.

No, we're pointing out that the President's stated reasons for invoking his power are deeply hypocritical. No one's questioning his power to do this, we're just pointing out that his reasons for doing so don't make a lot of sense.

The real power to determine sentences is now in the hands of the executive (prosecutors) rather than in the hands of judges - and charging decisions are made behind closed doors. Thar's the basic trouble with the federal criminal justice system. It's only aggravated by a policy of charging the maximum unless a supervisor approves "special circumstances."

Libby's sentence was excessive, out of line with what other white collar criminals generally receive in state courts, and even with federal perjury cases before the Bush administration. However, it does seem like the policies promulgated by the Bush administration would give a 30 month sentence as a minimum - and the only "special circumstance" that counts is that Bush knows the defendant.

That's hypocrisy - unless, having had his nose rubbed in how the system actually works, Bush now sets out to change it for everyone, not just friends of Bush.

It wasn't until scote and Sentencing Policy very nicely pointed-out the stark hypocrisy of commuting an administration officials' long jail term, received after a guilty verdict - in direct opposition to the specific philosophy of the adminstration - did I really start to wake up to the deeply offensive nature of this commutation.

I hope this will be bad for the administration, but I likewise would hate to see the current crop of feckless Democratic leadership profit from the administrations' hypocrisy.

"Excessive" may not refer to the general punishment, but may also relate to the specifics of the case. In this situation you have two other confessed leakers (Richard Armitage and Ari Fleischer), one of who specificly obtained the information from a classified document then passed it on to reporters (Armitage) and the other who recieved at least confirmation of the information by reading it in a classified document(Fleischer). Neither of those individuals has been charged with anything.

Further, Armitage decieved investigators about his role as the first leaker for two years and attmpted to tamper with a witness (Novak), and may have attempted to tamper with a second witness (Marc Grossman).

Fleischer committed perjury on the stand in the Libby trial when he denied under oath telling Walter Pincus about Plame.

That Libby should spend a day in jail while both of these men walk free of any legal jepardy may seem "excessive" to those familure with the details of this case.

I thing what is being missed here is that the pardoning power of the President is not a duty or a process, it is a perk. Thus it can't really have any sort of legal analysis applied to it. The framers knew when the enshrined it into the constitution that it would be employed on occasion by mere whim. Every year the President pardons a turkey for no good reason, nobody gets upset about that. Or starts looking up the federal sentencing guidelines for turkeys to see if there is any inconsistentcy.

Every year the President pardons a turkey for no good reason

But this year he was almost 5 months early.

(Bada-bing!)

Chico's Bail Bonds

By claiming he believes in the Sentencing Guidelines' goal of equal treatment and then giving special treatment to his crony, Bush acted hypocritically.

One could say the same thing about Fitz. By arguing so strongly that everyone must tell the truth and then excusing Armitage's deceptions to investigators, he acted hypocritically. Fitz was even more hypocritical because he went futher to argue before the court that Armitage's identity as the first leaker should be concealed because he had "done nothing wrong."

In that light, the Libby commutation is simply a partial redress of Fitz's hypocritical conduct as a prosecutor.

Every year the President pardons a turkey for no good reason, nobody gets upset about that. Or starts looking up the federal sentencing guidelines for turkeys to see if there is any inconsistentcy.

Well, he says it's a pardon but I suspect that it is more a temporary stay of execution. I hear they keep those turkeys in an undisclosed location...I worry that Dick Cheney may try to shoot them in the face when he's in a bad mood...

The President shall... have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons...

Everything else is political arm-waving and impotent second-guessing.

Pardon's by their unilateral nature are, perhaps, inherently political. However, the President's absolute power of pardon is tempered by the political consequences of intemperate use of that power, including impeachment. To dismiss legitimate objection to inappropriate pardons or commutations as mere "arm-waving" is to dismiss the constitutional separation of powers as quaint. I don't buy it and I don't think you should, either.

Victor Rita did not have public figures as varied as Henry Kissinger, Natan Sharansky, and Leon Wieseltier asking for clemency on his behalf.

But this is a function of fame, not merit.

Victor Rita did not have public figures as varied as Henry Kissinger, Natan Sharansky, and Leon Wieseltier asking for clemency on his behalf.

In other words, certified members of the American elite ought to be subjected to a kinder gentler criminal justice system than ordinary schlubs who don't get invited to dinner parties thrown by these varied public figures.

In my previous comment, I meant 18 U.S.C. 3553, not 3355. My apologies.

Implicit in Bush's proffered reason, then, is the conclusion that the Guideline sentence -- at least for perjury committed by a first-time offender -- is unreasonable. Although this determination is in no way binding upon courts, it certainly seems relevant to sentencing determinations.

I guess I'm wondering if we have a very similar situation to compare Libby to? Rita keeps coming up, but it turns out Rita is not a first-time offender. Additionally, the crime wasn't really white collar (at least by how I understand what white collar implies). So not really very similar except that there were charges of perjury involved.

I did some searches, and maybe this is just my inability to use the correct search terms, but I could not find a case where a government employee who otherwise had a spotless record was brought up on these charges. I'd like to compare and contrast just for my own curiosity. Has anyone else had any luck?

I think Orin is off on his branches of government analysis.

The President's pardon power is not an extension of the Executive Branch's prosecutorial powers (an argument I find bizarre). Rather, it is a judicial power which has nonetheless been granted to the President, just as the veto power is a legislative power which has nonetheless been granted to the President.

So, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether the President's exercise of the pardon power is consistent with his stated principles for the exercise of judicial power, because when he uses his pardon powers he is taking on a judicial function. Indeed, this is particularly clear in a commutation cases, where the President is substituting his own sentence for the sentence established by the judge, and sentencing is a core judicial function.

Professor Kerr,
I also think your distinction between the roles of the executive branch and the judicial branch is unpersuasive. If all the Bush administration had done was argue that the Federal Judges should not have the power to deviate from the guidelines, then your point would be valid. But after the Guideline were determined not to be mandatory, they have encouraged judges still to use them, and not exercise discretion. They have essentially argued that the Guidelines always come to a just sentence.
So the hypocrisy is not that they believe there are different roles for members of the judiciary and the executive. The hypocrisy is that when the executive and the judiciary have roughly equivalent powers, the administration believes the judiciary should never use theirs.

I find this whole thread asinine. Clinton took the presidential pardon power to new heights, pardoning convicted drug dealers, tax evaders, etc. for almost entirely pecuniary and venal reasons, partially funding his wife's Senatorial campaign through them.

In this case, you have someone who's major crime was protecting his boss, the VP. Somehow using the pardon power on someone for loyalty reasons is horrible, but it is just fine to sell pardons for campaign contributions (or to make his brothers-in-law rich).

And there is nothing that anyone can do about the President's actions here. He is never going to run for anything. He won't be impeached for it. And the idea that he could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice after he is out of office is almost as ludicrous as the entire thread. And, even if it weren't, all he would need to do is pardon himself before leaving office. But he won't have to, because he has pretty total immunity there.

So, as a certain young lady keeps reminding me: Deal with it.

Ranger,

I have never heard anyone accuse Armitage of lying to the investigators. I just checked the Wikipedia article on PlameGate and it says Armitage credits his not being charged to his candor. He turned over his computers, his relevant documents and never hired a lawyer.

Unless you know something I don't know about Armitage, your argument against Fitz doesn't hold water.

The other reason that Bush would never be prosecuted for this, above and beyond the likelihood that this action is absolutely immune, is that no president is going to go along with it, first because it would reduce his own powers, and secondly, it would be an absolutely horrid precedent - that he might himself be prosecuted for something he did as president. And, yes, if Democrat X were the next president, and prosecuted his predecessor for obstruction of justice, and then was followed by Republican Y, Republican Y would likely return the favor.

Political hardball is one thing, but presidents do worry about their own power, and in the end, that is more important to them than proving some obscure point.

1. If this issue were litigated, it wouldn't be by any of the prospective candidates.

2. If there is any legal objection to the pardon/commutation, it's that it was issues to the target of a Special Prosecutor's investigation, contrary to the holding of U.S. v. Nixon -- I can't imagine any other grounds on which a court would purport to limit the President's pardon power. That's a very specific instance, and a fairly unobjectionable result -- it simply means that, as in Nixon, the President's otherwise plenary powers are self-limited by delegations made under the Appointments Clause.

Bruce,

Excellent point. Libby committed his crimes on behalf of the Administration, so the President commuted his sentence. How on earth could anyone see anything wrong with that?

Hoosier,

To get a definitive answer to that question, Libby would have to stop lying and tell Fitzgerald the truth. Obviously, if he ever had an incentive to do that, he doesn't now.

But if it helps, keep in mind that what Libby lied about was his participation in internal discussions regarding Plame working for the CIA before he started leaking that information to the press (his most important lie was that Russert told him about Plame's CIA employment, when in fact he had already been talking about her employment with the CIA with various people inside the Administration, including the Vice President, before his conversation with Russert). So, the logical next questions to ask Libby would be about the substance of the Administration's internal discussions about Plame, such as what he and the other people in these conversations actually knew about Plame's status, and why some of them decided to leak that information.

But you obviously can't get Libby to answer such questions if Libby is still denying the very existence of those discussions. And again, now he has no incentive to start providing that information.

ATRGeek,

But you obviously can't get Libby to answer such questions if Libby is still denying the very existence of those discussions.

Well, given that there is not actual written documentation to support the contention that those conversations actually took place. There are many documents covering the discussions about responding to Wilson's claims before he was specifically identified (because it was widely known who the un-named ambassador was in DC), but the only one in the VP's office from before the Novak article is Libby's own note that he turned over to the investigators. The most extensive discussion of Plame is in the State Department INR memo from early June, but that was never sent to the VP's office and only sent to the White House after Novak's article was already on the wires on 11 July.

As it was presented at trial, nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame. Marc Grossman initially told the FBI he had three separate phone conversations with Libby about Plame, but when phone records failed to back up that claim, he re-remembered that it was, in fact, just one face to face conversation in-between two meetings. And Grossman's was the most precise recollection. Everyone else's was even less definitive or credible.

There is, in fact, very little if any credible evidence that these conversations you claim happened ever took place. If there was evidence of this, I think Fitz would have introduced it at trial.

Yet more evidence of how "routine" (to borrow Tony Snow's description) Libby's commutation was:

"We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual."

ranger: "This raises the question of why Fitz was so forgiving of Armitage's 'forgetfulness' yet so unforgiving of Libby's."

Armitage wasn't indicted because he cooperated with Fitz, instead of obstructing him. Armitage, Rove and Fleischer all ultimately cooperated with Fitz. Rove, for example, was given many chances to get his story straight. And he eventually did (at least to a reasonable level, where it could no longer be easily proven that he was sticking with a lie), so Fitz let him off the hook. Libby, on the other hand, started with a bogus tale, and stuck with that tale despite many chances to come clean. And he still hasn't come clean (it seems that this is because he had a get-out-of-jail free card in his back pocket the whole time). This is the key difference between Libby and the others.

By the way, it's fun to notice the new fashion of trying to paint Armitage as somewhere to the left of Mao. This conveniently forgets that Armitage was part of the Bush administration and was part of the neocon club: he signed the PNAC letter along with the rest of the gang. The letter was signed by people like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol and Kagan.

Because Armitage didn't always remain in the first rank of pro-war fanatics, certain folks want to paint him as a leftist, and claim this is why he's off the hook. But Armitage is no leftist, and that's not why he's off the hook. He's off the hook because he cooperated with Fitz, instead of obstructing him.

ranger: "there is not actual written documentation to support the contention that those conversations actually took place … nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame"

Reall? Libby's grand jury testimony clearly indicates that Libby and Cheney discussed Plame on multiple occasions.

"the only one [document] in the VP's office from before the Novak article is Libby's own note that he turned over to the investigators"

Really? Cheney kept a clipping of Wilson's op-ed on his desk. The clipping had Cheney's handwriting on it, saying this (pdf):

Or did his wife send him on a junket?

Why are you making things up?

ranger: "at trial Fitz claimed the motive was an effort to conceal the fact that he had violated his non-disclosure agreements regarding classified information. That would have required Fitz to prove that Libby knew the information was classified when he passed it along"

Wrong. Proving "that Libby knew the information was classified when he passed it along" is relevant with regard to IIPA, but it's not relevant with regard to SF-312, which is much broader, and uses a different standard. The "non-disclosure agreement[s] regarding classified information" that Libby signed is here. It says this:

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it

Let us know if you're seriously claiming that Libby was 'certain' that Plame's status as a CIA employee was unclassified. As far as we can tell, no one ever gave him any solid basis to be 'certain' about this. As far as we can tell, he never bothered to ask.

It's a matter of common sense to understand that a CIA employee's employment status might be classified information. Especially if that person works in the directorate of operations. And especially if that person's work involves WMD. There's reason to understand that Libby knew all this. Trouble is, there's no reason to think that anyone told him he could be 'certain' that her employment status was not classified information. In other words, it seems abundantly clear that, at the very least, Libby violated SF-312.

Simple question: if Libby thought he was providing Miller with unclassified information, why did he insist that she hide his identity?

jukeboxgrad,

All of those conversations were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert.

Or did his wife send him on a junket?

Which the VP says he wrote after the Novak story came out as part of a re-assessment of Wilson's story in the wake of new information.

Which the VP says he wrote after the Novak story came out as part of a re-assessment of Wilson's story in the wake of new information.

Under oath, he said that? When and where? And if it wasn't under oath, then excuse me for not caring.

Broadly: we keep getting people here stating the same misinformation over and over. We refute it once with the facts, but then a new person shows up spouting the same misinformation and the cycle repeats.

It is not hard to figure out why this is happening: there are sources of misinformation in other places that do not have any mechanism for correction. But boy is it annoying that people keep arriving here from those other places as if they had something new to contribute to the discussion.

atr: "there is no particular reason for him [Fitz] to hate Libby more than any of the other leakers"

Exactly. But what they're trying to do is take a fact (that Armitage seems to be less of a hardcore Bushist than Libby) and invest it with all sorts of extra, inflated meaning: that Armitage is a leftist and so is Fitz. Then again, in BushWorld, any non-Bushist is a leftist.

It's all about Manicheanism. But as someone said, "Calling Bush's Views Manichean Is an Insult to the Manicheans."

jukeboxgrad

Exactly. But what they're trying to do is take a fact (that Armitage seems to be less of a hardcore Bushist than Libby) and invest it with all sorts of extra, inflated meaning: that Armitage is a leftist and so is Fitz. Then again, in BushWorld, any non-Bushist is a leftist.

I've never said Armitage was a leftist. Armitage did oppose the war in Iraq, whereas Libby supported it. Which brings us to the crux of the issue here. Fitz himself said in his presser that he didn't want to find leakers, because there are "good" leaks and "bad" leaks. But that is, in itself a political distinction. Presumably "good" leaks are those that support policies you agree with or work to damage policies you disagree with. Conversly, "bad" leaks support policies disagree with or damage policies you agree with. One might even go farther and say "good" leakers are "good" because their motives are "good" where as "bad" leakers are "bad" because their motives are impure.

Fitz took it upon himself to determine who were the good leakers and who were the bad ones. Fitz persued Libby because, to him, Libby was a "bad" leaker. Whereas he gave Armitage a pass because, to him, Armitage was a "good" leaker. That can be called many things, and it is within the limits of the law (just barely), but it is not "Justice" by any means.

ranger: "The most extensive discussion of Plame is in the State Department INR memo from early June, but that was never sent to the VP's office and only sent to the White House after Novak's article was already on the wires on 11 July."

Wrong. First of all, it's helpful to realize that there are two "INR memo[s]." Or, it would be more correct to say that there are two slightly different versions of one memo. There is an INR memo dated 6/10/03. But this same information was repackaged, in only slightly different form, on 7/7/03.

It's also helpful to realize that these memos only existed in the first place because Cheney, even before Wilson's op-ed, was asking all sorts of questions about Wilson's trip. Various people at State (and elsewhere) were running around trying to provide answers.

Anyway, you're suggesting no one in the White House or in Cheney's office saw these memos until "after Novak's article was already on the wires on 11 July." That's pure baloney. It's been widely reported that the second memo, at least, was 'perused' by Fleischer and various other officials on a flight to Africa on 7/7/03. In fact, it seems that the 7/7 memo was prepared specifically so Powell could take it on that flight and discuss it with various people. That flight carried various senior people, including Bush and Bartlett. See here and here.

We look forward to seeing proof for your claim, that "the State Department INR memo … was never sent to the VP's office and only sent to the White House after Novak's article was already on the wires on 11 July."

ranger: "All of those conversations [between Cheney and Libby regarding Plame] were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert."

You are responding this claim I made: "Libby's grand jury testimony clearly indicates that Libby and Cheney discussed Plame on multiple occasions."

Why do you insist on making things up? This is from Libby's grand jury testimony:

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that he [Cheney] had told you back in June, June 12th or before, prior to the Pincus article, that his [Wilson's] wife worked in the functional office of Counterproliferation of the CIA. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.

Have you ever considered a career in fiction?

ranger: "Which the VP says he wrote after the Novak story came out as part of a re-assessment of Wilson's story in the wake of new information."

You're claiming that Cheney didn't write his note (pdf) until "after the Novak story came out." Really? When did Cheney ever say that?

And what reason would there be to believe such a claim? You're suggesting that Cheney didn't get interested in Wilson until post-Novak (7/14/03, when Novak wrote his famous column). But to do that, you have to ignore Libby's testimony, which clearly indicates that Cheney was interested in Wilson even pre-Wilson (7/6/03, when Wilson wrote his famous column).

As usual, you're making things up. We'll wait patiently while you attempt to prove otherwise.

anderson: "Under oath, he said that? When and where? And if it wasn't under oath, then excuse me for not caring."

It's not just that Cheney didn't say under oath what Ranger claimed (asserting that Cheney didn't scribble on the clipping of Wilson's article until after 7/14/03). It's that Cheney never said it, period (not even through a proxy, as far as I can tell; i.e., until Ranger came along). Ranger has a vivid imagination. But we already knew that.

atr: "boy is it annoying that people keep arriving here from those other places as if they had something new to contribute to the discussion"

They do have something to contribute to the discussion. They provide an inadvertent public service by vividly demonstrating to bystanding fence-sitters that the GOP base has a very serious problem with truthfulness. Just like its leaders.

jukeboxgrad--You're quite out of line now--Those who don't come around to your point of vew are liars? All of them? And you've demonstarted that now? Come off it.

Speaking as a fence-sitter, but one who is not at all fond of Bush, you aren't making me think that the Bush-haters are all that thoughtful.

ranger: "Libby claims he dose not remember those conversations"

You're claiming that Libby doesn't remember his early conversations with Cheney et al, regarding Plame. Actually, he remembered them after he forgot about them after he originally remembered them. As I have shown, in his grand jury testimony he repeatedly admitted learning about Plame from Cheney, in June.

"Fitz himself said in his presser that he didn't want to find leakers, because there are 'good' leaks and 'bad' leaks."

Fitz's press conference is here. Where did he say what you just claimed he said?

"Fitz took it upon himself to determine who were the good leakers and who were the bad ones."

Uh, no. Fitz took it upon himself to draw a distinction between people who ultimately told the truth, when given a chance, as compared with Libby, who stuck with his fibs until the bitter end.

jukeboxgrad

You're claiming that Libby doesn't remember his early conversations with Cheney et al, regarding Plame. Actually, he remembered them after he forgot about them after he originally remembered them. As I have shown, in his grand jury testimony he repeatedly admitted learning about Plame from Cheney, in June.

You mean kind of like Armitage forgetting for a couple of years that he was the first leaker?

Or Ari Fleisher forgetting and denying under oath that he told Walter Pincus?

ranger: "The atmosphere around the issue of pre-war intel was already so divisive that if the source of the information would have been the OVP's office, then many people would have simply disregarded it. Sourcing it back to a 'former hill staffer' meant the information could have come from anywhere in the government, and therefore would have to be evaluated on its own, not based on the affiliation of the source (it could have been either a Republican or a Democrat)."

Wow, that's imaginative. Now I think you've topped yourself. No small thing. Anyway, I give you credit for even trying to answer the question, because, as far as I've noticed, no one else has had the guts to even try (in this and various other venues where I've posed the question numerous times).

I asked you why Libby insisted that Miller hide his identity. You're basically saying that the White House's credibility was already so low that folks were inclined to ignore everything they said. So to gain some unearned credibility, it was proper to hide behind a curtain and behave like a ventriloquist, and hope people think the real source is a Democrat, because the White House had embraced the idea that the public sees Democrats as more credible. Clever way to deal with a credibility problem!

Simple question: why does this principle not apply to all White House statements? The briefing room is a waste, and should be abolished. The White House can surely find a better use for the space, like turning it into a private party dungeon for Jeff Gannon. He could pay a concession fee to help with the budget deficit. Meanwhile, all press communications should be done via the kind of blatantly deceptive ventriloquism you're defending. Why not? You're essentially claiming that this would be a good way to get the public to actually believe what the White House says. Because if the public knows it's the White House talking, they are likely to simply 'disregard' it.

Another simple question: why did Scottie lie and tell us Libby and Rove weren't involved? Another clever way to deal with a credibility problem?

But back to your claim, for a moment. Let's get specific. Here's "the information" that Libby wanted Miller to attribute to a "former hill staffer:" the assertion that Plame sent Wilson. Please imagine picking up a newspaper and seeing one of the following two statements:

A) Named White House spokesman says Plame sent Wilson
B) Unnamed former hill staffer says Plame sent Wilson

You're trying to claim, with a straight face, that Joe Public would be more likely to believe B, rather than A. And that this is why the White House chose B over A. As if the White House had deliberately embraced the idea that "unnamed former hill staffer" is obviously a more credible source than "named White House spokesman."

That's quite an astonishing assertion. It's astonishing to assert that the public views B as more credible than A (especially since "staffer" is a distinct notch below "congressman"), and it's even more astonishing to assert that the White House adopted this belief about the public.

Here's a much simpler (and non-ludicrous) explanation for why the White House chose B over A: it knew that Plame's employment status was (or at least might be) classified information. And it knew that aside from leaking classified information, it was also telling a lie (because Wilson was not sent by Plame), and telling a lie for a sleazy purpose: to smear someone who was right. And someone who was right about something profoundly important: that our government had lied us into war. Because the White House couldn't possibly engage Wilson, in an above-board manner, by presenting non-forged proof to substantiate the 16 words.

One more thing: your startlingly asinine claim is a subtle way of saying this: 'the Dems created a divisive atmosphere, so therefore we were forced to do things in an underhanded manner.' That incoherent claim has nothing to do with logic or facts, but it fits the Bushist template: when in trouble, always try to pretend that the other guy, not you, is responsible for your actions.

Ranger, it was sure clever of Fitz to pretend that the IIPA has an intent element. Glad you saw through him on that.

Anderson

Ranger, it was sure clever of Fitz to pretend that the IIPA has an intent element. Glad you saw through him on that.

But Fitz has only ever claimed the IIPA is at issue when he doesn't have to prove any of the elements exist.

In fact, Fitz would have to prove Libby knew Plame was covered by the statue before he even got to the question of intent because the statute clearly states the one must know for a fact the person is covert, and since the CIA itself can't tell us after looking at the situation for over 5 years if she is or isn't, how would Libby be able to know for certain she was.

ranger: "if the memo was a response to questions raised by the OVP then why not send a copy of the entire memo over to OVP to answer their questions"

I realize that you're making the assumption that this never happened. It would be nice to see your proof that it never happened, since you seem to be treating it as a proven fact.

It turns out that "send a copy of the entire memo over" is apparently what happened on 7/7/03, when Powell passed the memo around on Air Force One, which was packed with senior people including Bush, Fleischer and Bartlett. And the fact that this happened on 7/7/03 most definitely does not rule out the possibility or likelihood that such a thing (various people in the White House gaining access to the content of the memo, in various forms, directly or indirectly) also happened on one or more prior occasions.

"the memo was held within State and Grossman simply passed on, verbally, that 'we are hearing that Wilson was sent by the CIA because his wife works there' without any attribution that the information was classified at all"

There you go again, inventing your own facts. Yes, it's true that Grossman made certain verbal statements. But where is your proof that those statements never included warnings about classified information? And anyway, if they didn't, why is it State's job to make sure OVP handles CIA secrets carefully? Let me remind you, again, that Form SF-312 required Libby to make sure he was certain the information was unclassified before he gave it to Miller. Are you claiming he had a basis to be certain? Saying 'nobody told me it was classified' (even if that is true) is not good enough. It's like 'the dog ate my homework.'

And where is your proof that the memo wasn't circulated to the White House? We have proof that State conveyed certain information to the White House, verbally. Where is your proof that this is the only information that State communicated to the White House? The presence of certain verbal communications does not prove the absence of certain written communications.

"in this case and entirely new memo was created, thus concealing from the new distrobution list the fact that the State Department had been in possesion of this information for nearly a month"

Interesting theory. Let's take a look at "the new distrobution list." Here it is, in full:

The Secretary

You're suggesting that Carl Ford was trying to pull a fast one on Powell, as if Ford would have some motive to do this, and as if Powell was entirely clueless about the fact that lots of people had been discussing this issue in and out of State for weeks, if not months.

Like so many other things you say, this makes no sense whatsoever. Here's one reason your claim is utterly incoherent: both versions of the INR memo are essentially a review of things State learned in 2002 (and mostly on 2/19/02). In neither memo is INR making any pretense of being newly "in possesion of this information." In other words, it's not that "the State Department had been in possesion of this information for nearly a month;" State "had been in possesion of this information" for roughly 16 months. It had no reason to hide this, and in neither version of the memo did it make even the slightest attempt to hide this, from Powell, the White House, or anyone else. In other words, your speculation is beyond wacky.

There's a much simpler explanation for why Ford issued a new memo; even though the memos are almost identical, there is indeed a substantive change in the text, in one place, in the second sentence. That change is described here. That article offers some interesting speculation about the reason for the change. I don't necessarily agree with all the speculation, but that's not the point. The fact is that Ford made a substantive change, maybe just for the purpose of correcting an error. It would make no sense for him to reissue a memo containing an error, especially since this new version was going to top management. It would make perfect sense that he would use most of his original text to create a new memo which did not contain the original error.

"if it was generated by questions from the OVP and it was being distributed outside of state, why send it to the White House and not the OVP which generated the question?"

Because a very, very normal protocol, in any large organization but especially in a government organization, would be to inform your own management and let them decide how to carry the information elsewhere. Especially when the subject matter is very sensitive. Ford does not report to Cheney. Ford reports to Powell. That's why Ford addressed a memo to Powell. Powell then carried that memo onto an airplane, where various people (like Fleischer) ended up reading it and discussing it. There's nothing exotic or sinister about this.

ranger: "The memo was faxed to Air Force One on the morning of July 11th (Africa time), not hand carried by Powell"

How the memo arrived on Air Force One (carried by Powell or faxed to him) is hardly important. If you can explain why you think it's important that would be great.

Anyway, Andrea Mitchell and LAT have claimed that it was faxed. If you're trying to tell us that you consider these to be authoritative sources, that would be good to know. If you have actual proof of your claim, that would be even better.

As far as "on the morning of July 11th," for some strange reason Byron York claims that Fleischer testified that he heard Bartlett make statements about the memo "later that day [7/7/03]… on the flight over." So please let us know how you know something that York doesn't know.

"Fleischer said Bartlett read the memo and told him what was in it on the morning of the 11th"

According to York, that happened on 7/7, not 7/11. Can you share with us your secret copy of the official trial transcript, so we can prove to York that you're smarter than he is?

And anyway, why does it matter?

"one of the reporters has stated that Fleischer never mentioned Plame and only said 'if you want to understand what's going on with Wilson, go find out who sent him.' "

Nice job inventing more of your own facts. Dickerson did not claim that "Fleischer never mentioned Plame." Dickerson said that Fleischer never "told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Not the same thing as "never mentioned her."

"That directly controdicts Fleischer's claim of what he said and when."

Uh, no. It's not a 'direct contradiction.' It's the difference between conveying something via a hint and conveying something directly. Fleischer claims he did the latter. Dickerson claims that Fleischer did only the former. Not a huge contradiction.

No one is claiming that all humans always have perfect memory. Libby's problem is that the jury heard a ton of evidence and decided that Libby had something worse than a memory problem: he had a truthfulness problem.

"If President Bush thinks it's important for the executive branch to tailor punishments so that they fit the crime, why is he letting his Justice Department deny that same power to career prosecutors in the 99.99% of cases that President Bush never sees?"

The idea that this is a matter of Bush "letting" DoJ "deny" that power to prosecutors verges on the bizarre. Regardless of the President's putative enthusiam, or lack of it, his Attorney General's relevant memoranda require, via promulgation of policy, that prosecutors conform to the statutorial directives of Congress. Since the very existence of the pardon power itself represents a specific, constitutional, exemption from such conformity, there is simply no basis for your plaintive expectation of consistency here, quite the opposite.

Surely, you're not arguing that DoJ policy should reflect Presidential standards for clemancy; suggesting, in reverse, that the President ought to deny himself any power not accorded to federal prosecutors, is equally perverse. It seems that what you've really got a problem with is the pardon power itself. Aren't you essentially arguing that the President should not excercise his exclusive extra-legal, extra-judicial power to make exceptions to the rules in place?

Even the simpler imputation of hypocrisy similarly assumes that Ashcroft's Sept. '03 memorandum can be fairly described as a reflection of Presidential intentions. Yet both Ashcroft's September communiqué, and his earlier July 18, 2003 Memorandum (PDF here) were explicitly designed to bring DoJ policy into conformity with changes mandated by Congress, not the President, in the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act of 2003.

In addition to reforms specified by the statute itself, Ashcroft's July Memo notes that it also "instructs the Sentencing Commission to abopt additional measures 'to ensure that the incidence of downward departures [is] substantially reduced.'" As a "party to every federal sentencing proceeding," DoJ clearly shared that legal burden, and the policies outlined by the A.G. could certainly, and perhaps more accurately, be described as responding to and implementing the will of Congress, not the Chief Executive.

Nice job inventing more of your own facts. Dickerson did not claim that "Fleischer never mentioned Plame." Dickerson said that Fleischer never "told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Not the same thing as "never mentioned her."

Well, here is the conclusion to Dickerson's article, where he clearly states that he thinks Ari lied about what he told both himself and Gregory and why it matters:

How does Ari's testimony affect the perjury and obstruction of justice case against Libby? It certainly complicates it. For starters, when this piece appears, it may get me out of my press seat and into that uncomfortable little witness box. It hurts the prosecution if Ari admitted something he didn't do, because they're relying on his memory. Libby is on trial for saying he didn't know about Wilson's wife and that he learned it from NBC's Tim Russert. Fleischer contradicts that. He claims that Libby told him about Wilson's wife at a lunch in early July, long before Libby ever talked to Russert. If they can poke holes in Ari's recollection of what he told me, they can raise doubts about what Ari remembers Scooter telling him.

Ari claimed he used the name Plame, he didn't. Ari claims he told them that Wilson was sent by his wife. Dickerson says Ari mearly said that Wilson's wife works at the CIA (which apparently wasn't important to anyone in the press corps at that time).

And no one who claims Ari learned this on the 7th has explained why he waited 3 days to pass it along to members of the press on the 10th. Thus, I am inclined to believe that it was new information on the day it was passed along. The fact that Ari passed it along on the 10th rather than the 11th works even more against the idea that it was impossible for Russert to mention it to Libby, as it gives Gregory another whole day to pass the "Wilson's wife works at the CIA" information on to him (remember that Russert has stated under oath that if Gregory knew something then Russert would have known it).

Either Ari is wrong about what he told reporters and when or Russert is wrong that he couldn't have known about 'Wilson's Wife' before the 14th. Take out either of those witnesses and their is a huge hole in the prosecutions case, and at present, their stories are mutually exclusive.

jukeboxgrad:

ranger: "if the memo was a response to questions raised by the OVP then why not send a copy of the entire memo over to OVP to answer their questions"

I realize that you're making the assumption that this never happened. It would be nice to see your proof that it never happened, since you seem to be treating it as a proven fact.

Well, I am making the assumption that if the prosecutor has evidence that supports his case, he will use it. The fact that Fitz never even suggested Libby saw the INR memo indicates that there is no evidence it was ever sent to the OVP. Similarly, the fact that Fitz never attempted to estblish at trial the fact that anyone who told Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA ever qualified it as being classified information indicates he has no evidence that anyone did identify that information as classified to Libby.

And since it bothers you so much that Libby wanted to be identified as a former hill staffer, does it also bother you that Wilson tried to pass himself off as a political independant and concealed the fact he was working for the Kerry campaign on a volunteer basis when he wrote his op-ed? Shouldn't people have known that Wilson himself was active in the Kerry campiagn when he made his charges against the president? People might have looked at his charges differently if they had known he had a vested interest in the outcome.

What I find most remarkable about all these VERY convincing factual arguments Ranger has made is that Libby's counsel either (1) failed to make them; or (2) did make them and failed to persuade either the jury or the judge. No matter -- I'm confident that the appellate court will rely on these facts to excuse Mr. Libby from any jail time pending appeal.

This conveniently forgets that Armitage was part of the Bush administration and was part of the neocon club[...].

C’mon, however decent and sensible Armitage may once have been, he was blinded by BDS, and now he‘s now just another brainwashed tool of John Kerry, Hugo Chavez and Barbara Streisand’s Hate America First Club. Like ex-patriots Paul O'Neill, Larry Lyndsey, Eric Shinseki, and the seven fired U.S. Attorneys, he should be shot on sight, so he can be properly remembered as another tragic victim of Islamo-fascism.

Not to further sully a perfectly idiotic argument with facts, but seriously, wasn’t it Armitage who put the fear of God into Musharraf, getting him to sing from Bush's hymnal on the GWOT? Pinko creep.

jukeboxgrad

ranger: "I never said that Wilson's Wife was never discussed by Libby and the VP before the Russert phone call."

Really? Let's review. I suppose maybe it was an entirely different ranger who said this:


nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame


(Let's notice those absolute, unequivocal words "nobody" and "any." Let's notice that you weren't merely claiming "Wilson's Wife was never discussed by Libby and the VP before the Russert phone call." You were going further. You were claiming that "Wilson's Wife was never discussed by Libby and the VP." Period.)

I never said such a thing. I said there were not significant conversations, which to me means memorable. In fact, everybody remembers talking about Wilson's after Wilson was on Meet the Press, but no one can clearly remember talking about it before that. And when I say clearly remember I mean a memory that has not had to be corrected as a result of controdictory evidence being presented.

For example, the strongest recollection is from Marc Grossman, who originally remember three seperate distinct conversations on the phone. But when no phone records supported that recollection, it changed to one face to face conversation. I find that need to correct the memory to meet the facts somewhat troubling. And Grossman is the strongest memory presented.

I responded as follows:


Libby's grand jury testimony clearly indicates that Libby and Cheney discussed Plame on multiple occasions


Your answer was this:


All of those conversations were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert


Here's what you did: you backpedaled. You swept your earlier claim ("nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame") under the rug, and attempted to float another claim that is only marginally less dishonest, that "all of those conversations were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert."

The question is before or after the conversations with Russert. As I pointed out, to date there is only one documeted conversation between Libby and the VP before the Russert conversations. There are other perported conversations with other government officials, but all of them have serious issues as well. Grossman changed his story when confronted with a lack of supporting evidence. The CIA briefer will only say that notes indicated he might have discussed it with Libby, but he has 'no active memory' of any such conversation taking place. The second CIA person has no memory of telling Libby, but he believes he must have because he now feels guilty about it. Ect....

Trouble is, that claim is also false, and I demonstrated that. So now you're trying to pretend you never said it.

One more time, so it's really simple. You said this:


nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame


Then you said this:


I never said that Wilson's Wife was never discussed by Libby and the VP before the Russert phone call.


You are now finally acknowledging what I have proven to be true: that "Wilson's Wife was [indeed] discussed by Libby and the VP before the Russert phone call." But why did you deny this earlier? How can your earlier statement ("nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame") be interpreted as anything other than an outright denial of what you now acknowledge as the truth?

As I said

You attempted to convince us that Libby and Cheney never discussed Plame. Now you're pretending you never said that. Why?

Because I didn't say what you think I said. That is clearly my fault for not being clear about what I meant by significant, and I clearly wasn't claiming there was no conversation because I am the one that pointed out that Libby himself gave the FBI the only physical evidence of any conversations at all between the himself and the VP.

Everyone in this case has changed their story at least once. Some several times. That indicates that until David Corn wrote his article in response to Novak's story, no one thought the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA mattered that much.

And let's look at this from one more angle, just so it's really clear. You said this (let's call this A):


All of those conversations were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert


Then you said this (let's call this B):


I never said that Wilson's Wife was never discussed by Libby and the VP before the Russert phone call.


The thing that B asserts you never said is precisely what you did indeed assert, in A. What makes you think that your flaming pants are not extremely obvious to anyone who's paying even the slightest attention?

Not at all. Libby himself admitted to several conversations with the VP after July 11th. He never admitted to more than one conversation before July 11th, but he did admit to one and provided the note. He simply claimed that the one conversation a month before July 11th wasn't memorable. Given how bad everyone's else's memories are about conversations about Wilson's Wife, that seems at least plausable to me. Armitage forgot about his conversation with Woodward around the same time. So, clearly this was not a piece of information that was significant or memorable until after the Novak and Corn stories.

Clearly based on your statements you believe Wilson (even though he was thuroughly discredited, so much so he was dumpted from the Kerry campaign over night after the SSCI report came out). It is also clear that you consider Libby guilty simply because he works for the administration. You see the administration as criminal and evil and therefore Libby can not be telling the truth or even honestly mistaken.

To bring this back to the suject of the original post, there are many, many issues in this case that raise questions, and therefore it is reasonable to see the Libby sentance as excessive when compared to how other were treated very differently in this same investigation such as Richard Armitage. Armitage either concealed or forgot he told Woodward. Woodward told Pincus, but Pincus doesn't remember that. Ari denies he told Pincus, but Pincus clearly remembers Ari telling him. In that morass of conveniently failed memory, the fact the Libby is the only one who would spend time in jail for claiming to have forgetten a conversation.

ranger: "The information was not relevent to the Wilson pushback"

More utter nonsense. You're claiming "the information [about Plame] was not relevent to the Wilson pushback." Really? All this time we've been told the exact opposite. We've been told how important it was to 'set the record straight,' which consisted, to a great extent, of telling people that Plame, not Cheney, sent Wilson (as if Wilson ever claimed he was sent by Cheney; Wilson never made that claim). If "the information [about Plame] was not relevent to the Wilson pushback," then why did the White House take great (and ultimately self-destructive) risks in order to convey to reporters the false claim that Plame sent Wilson? What was the point of that, other than "Wilson pushback?"

"The information was not relevent to the Wilson pushback (as evidenced by the total lack of any reference to it in anyone's notes in the OVP)"

Nice job completely ignoring Cheney's handwritten note on the clipping of Wilson's article. That is indeed an example of "notes in the OVP," indicating that the Plame-gives-good-junket tale was at the heart of the "Wilson pushback."

"the fact that Libby alone should be prosecuted seems to some very unfair."

There were four (at least) leakers, but only one of them made up a deeply unbelievable story about instant amnesia. And Fleischer, for example, apparently made a deal. Libby could have done that too. But he decided he didn't need to make a deal with Fitz, because he had already made a deal with Bush and Cheney, apparently.

jukeboxgrad

ranger: "Libby's contention all along was that he was told about Wilson's Wife by the VP early in June."

Really? Are you sure? Final answer, as Regis says?

I guess it must have been an entirely different ranger who said this:


nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame


And of course it was ranger #3 who said this:


All of those conversations were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert


Will the real ranger please stand up? Or maybe the three rangers can put their heads together and pick a single version of reality that they're all willing to accept.

I think I made my points about that clear in a post above. Accept them or not, as you wish.

jukeboxgrad and Ranger:

Sorry for going OT, but do you guys have jobs? I admire your prolific output and envy the time you must have to produce it.

LM,

jukeboxgrad and Ranger:

Sorry for going OT, but do you guys have jobs? I admire your prolific output and envy the time you must have to produce it.

Well, as for myself, I am supposed to be writting a disertation, so this is an indulgence (and procrastination).

anderson: "Ranger, it was sure clever of Fitz to pretend that the IIPA has an intent element. Glad you saw through him on that."

I wish I had the time to write an answer that short. Because it's much better than mine.

ranger: "the primarry reason for Libby's meeting with Miller was to pass on the CIA's product, the NIE that had been the core of the WMD argument"

It's true that Libby had more than Plame on his mind; he also had NIE on his mind. But you need to prove your claim that NIE was "the primarry reason." And let's say it was; so what? How is this anything other than one of your usual red herrings?

"It's not clear beyond a reasonable doubt the conversations about Wilson's Wife even took place"

I guess that should have been another perjury count, then. Because Libby swore that "the conversations about Wilson's Wife [did indeed take] place." So if you're right, that "the conversations about Wilson's Wife [didn't take] place," that just means that Libby is an even bigger liar than we already knew.

Hmm, let's see. Miller said "the conversations about Wilson's Wife … took place." We have an official transcript of sworn testimony by Libby saying the same thing. But in your world, this is "not clear beyond a reasonable doubt." Simple question: if two people both say they had a certain conversation, why is it "not clear beyond a reasonable doubt" that they had that conversation? Especially given the absence of some contrary proof, like, say, showing that one of them hadn't been born yet at the time of the purported conversation.

You like to present "facts" absent a shred of proof, and at the same time you like to reject facts that are proven. This leads to a highly elastic relationship with reality.

"Libby wasn't convicted on that count, which implies that Miller was not a believable witness and the defense even moved for summary judgement on the Miller count because Fitz failed to intruduce any actual evidence supporting it."

I wonder which count you mean when you say "that count." You're suggesting that there was a count specifically with regard to Miller. There wasn't. And the only count where the jury returned a verdict of not guilty was the count regarding Cooper.

Yet another example of you inventing a fact, and then making all sorts of interesting claims that might be true if your first claim is true. Except that it's not.

Anyway, it's fascinating to know that Libby's defense "moved for summary judgement" on a non-existent count. The Libby Defense Fund should demand a refund. And hire you instead, next time.

"you are stating as absolute truth things which a judge and jury have rejected as unproven"

This is the thing that I'm stating, at the moment, as reasonably close to an "absolute truth:" Libby talked to Miller about Plame. Please indicate where the "judge and jury have rejected [this as] unproven."

"the White House (through the OVP) was providing to the public a CIA document that the CIA itself did not want distributed to the public because it was very embarrassing to the CIA (remember, this NIE is the CIA's statement to the President and Congress that Iraq had WMDs)"

This discussion is already broad enough without getting into yet another red herring of yours, this time about the NIE, especially because the most interesting aspects of the Libby situation have little to do with the NIE. I do think there are a lot of interesting things to notice about the NIE, but I've already explained that elsewhere.

"do you deny that the 'Bush Lied' meme had made any serious debate about pre-war intel failures impossible"

It's quite funny to notice a serial dissembler like you talk about "serious debate." Oh, by the way: Bush lied. Lots of proof is readily available, and I've collected some of it in various places, like here, here and here.

This is the problem, in a nutshell: Bush et al claimed "absolute certainty" even though the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain.

"As to Wilson and the 16 words, Wilson only addressed Niger. The 16 refered to Africa, which has 5 significant yellowcake producing countries, Niger is only one of them."

You are correct that Wilson "only addressed Niger." Simple question: if the 16 words were about some place other than Niger, then why did Tenet retract them?

By the way, there's ample other proof that the 16 words were about Niger. Some comments about those other "significant yellowcake producing countries" can be found here. You're presenting standard talking points that don't hold up to scrutiny. Been there, done that.

"The 16 words referenced British intel, not US information, and the British still stand by their intel."

Yawn. Asked and answered, here.

"Wilson claimed that by disproving that Iraq bought yellowcake from Niger, he had disproved that Iraq had sought yellowcake from Africa."

Uh, no. Wilson didn't just report that "Iraq [hadn't] bought yellowcake from Niger." He reported that they weren't trying (or at least there was no real sign they were trying). And would not succeed, even if they did.

"Wilson's report was taken as either not dispositive or possible supporting the claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake"

It is the Additional Views section written by Republicans, not the main bipartisan report, which promotes the idea that Wilson's report vindicates the 16 words. Nice job regurgitating an exceedingly common distortion.

I realize that you'd love to change the subject, instead of taking responsibility for the many false claims you've made about the Libby case.

ranger: "here is the conclusion to Dickerson's article, where he clearly states that he thinks Ari lied"

Wow. You have an incredible willingness to insert your own meaning. Dickerson doesn't say "he thinks Ari lied." It's obvious to everyone, including Dickerson, that the discrepancy (between Dickerson's recollection and Fleischer's recollection) can be resolved via many explanations, including this one: Fleischer is bad at remembering things accurately. In fact, Dickerson suggested this explanation:

It hurts the prosecution if Ari admitted something he didn't do, because they're relying on his memory.

Dickerson pointedly did not suggest the explanation you're suggesting that Dickerson suggested: that Fleischer is a liar. Why are you putting words in Dickerson's mouth?

Yes, both explanations are helpful to Libby. But they're not the same explanation. As usual, you're making things up.

Aside from that, this is another one of your little red herrings that ducks the question. You made this claim: that according to Dickerson, "Fleischer never mentioned Plame." Trouble is, Dickerson doesn't say that. What Dickerson said is that Fleischer never "told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Not the same thing as "never mentioned her."

Again, you have a stunning willingness to pretend that statement A really means B. And then when challenged, you change the subject, and pretend that statement C really means D. Amazing.

"Ari claimed he used the name Plame, he didn't."

Uh, no. You don't know that. Dickerson didn't assert that Fleischer never "used the name Plame." Dickerson only asserted that Fleischer didn't "[tell] me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." And Dickerson did not purport to be presenting a full verbatim account of a conversation that happened almost four years prior. And if he had purported to be presenting such a thing, people with a clue would be laughing at him.

"Ari claims he told them that Wilson was sent by his wife. Dickerson says Ari mearly said that Wilson's wife works at the CIA"

You're obviously very confused, and you should sit in a quiet place for a while. "Dickerson says Ari mearly said that Wilson's wife works at the CIA?" Really? Aren't you the same ranger who claimed that "Fleischer never mentioned Plame?" Are you now claiming that there's any material difference between "Wilson's wife" and "Plame?" That in itself is a fascinating little rathole, so I'm surprised you haven't mentioned it yet.

Anyway, aside from contradicting yourself, you're contradicting Dickerson, in a major way. One more time: Dickerson said that Fleischer never "told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

"no one who claims Ari learned this on the 7th has explained why he waited 3 days to pass it along to members of the press on the 10th"

Trouble is, no one except you has claimed that "he waited 3 days to pass it along to members of the press on the 10th."

"at present, their stories are mutually exclusive"

Fleischer and Russert have "mutually exclusive" stories only if you deny the possibility that Gregory might have been a bit distracted or lazy that week, and neglected to pass along to Russert something Russert thinks Gregory 'should' have passed along. Then again, I guess it must have been a different ranger who upthread mentioned and admitted precisely this possibility.

"Take out either of those witnesses and their is a huge hole in the prosecutions case"

Uh, no, but nice job repeating a standard piece of Bushist mythology. Libby's biggest problem is not that the testimony of various reporters made him look like a liar. Libby's biggest problem is that the testimony of numerous government employees made him look like a liar.

ranger: "the fact that Fitz never attempted to estblish at trial the fact that anyone who told Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA ever qualified it as being classified information indicates he has no evidence that anyone did identify that information as classified to Libby."

Uh, no. This is the same issue I discussed in my prior comment. There are other choices, like this one: Fitz decided this aspect was not necessary or relevant to his goals. Also, as I just explained, even if Fitz has no evidence that it happened, that is not proof that it didn't happen. Especially since we know that Libby is a liar.

"Wilson tried to pass himself off as a political independant and concealed the fact he was working for the Kerry campaign on a volunteer basis when he wrote his op-ed"

Please indicate where he said he was "a political independant."

By the way, you're putting the cart before the horse, as usual. It's not that Wilson decided to support Kerry, and therefore realized it would be a good idea to call Bush a liar. It's that Wilson realized that Bush was a liar, and therefore decided it would be a good idea to support Kerry.

"Shouldn't people have known that Wilson himself was active in the Kerry campiagn when he made his charges against the president?"

Please tell us exactly how "active" he was, and exactly how you know. Also, please refer us to any evidence that he hid his activities, or lied about his activities, or ducked questions about his activities.

ranger: "I never said such a thing. I said there were not significant conversations, which to me means memorable."

You're all over the map. You said this:

nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame

Then you managed to shake off some of your 'rust' and you remembered that Cheney actually did tell Libby about Plame in early June, after all. So what's your latest alibi? That this conversation wasn't "significant." That's quite a novel idea: Cheney is telling Libby about Plame, and it's the first time Libby is hearing about Plame, but this is something you call not "significant." Even though Libby took careful notes and also seems to have clear recollection of the conversation. And even though the heart of the story, to a great extent, is understanding how Libby first learned about Plame. If this conversation is not "significant" (in the context of the case), it's hard to picture what is.

So your alibi for that falsehood is pathetic. I can't wait to hear your alibi for this one:

All of those conversations were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert

And just to be clear, "all those conversations" is a reference to conversations where "Libby and Cheney discussed Plame," because you were responding to those words of mine.

Why did you claim that all conversations where "Libby and Cheney discussed Plame" took place "after July 10th or 11th?" Do you have a special calendar where early June comes after those dates?

"In fact, everybody remembers talking about Wilson's after Wilson was on Meet the Press, but no one can clearly remember talking about it before that."

There you go again with another whopper. The Kristof article and Pincus article both preceded MTP, and Libby gave detailed testimony with regard to discussing both those articles with Cheney, at around the time the articles appeared.

"when I say clearly remember I mean a memory that has not had to be corrected as a result of controdictory evidence being presented"

That's a very arbitrary ex post facto qualification that you didn't even hint at in your original claim ("all of those conversations were after … July 10th or 11th"). Also, please give us any indication that Libby's testimony regarding the Kristof and Pincus articles "had to be corrected [in some material way] as a result of controdictory evidence being presented."

Here's what has "to be corrected as a result of controdictory evidence being presented:" almost every single thing you've said in this thread.

lm: "do you guys have jobs?"

Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. Ranger provides an inadvertent public service, and presents a unique opportunity, because he's truly a world-class, graduate-level, industrial-strength wingnut. The key indicator is that's it's really hard to tell if you're dealing with dumbness or dishonesty. And in what proportion, since it's typically both. It seems that one is used as cover for the other, and vice versa, depending on the immediate requirements of the particular corner they've just painted themselves into.

Another key indicator is that all the standard talking points are loaded into RAM, and they will loop indefinitely as long as there's any charge in the battery. Another key indicator is that the ears are mostly there for show. They're not functional. They're designed to operate only when docked onto Rush, Sean or Hindrocket.

Another key indicator is that actually showing proof is frowned upon. I think it's considered subversive, or ungentlemanly.

I'm blessed with a work situation that provides a lot of flexibility and freedom.

If you google me, you'll see that I've been doing this for years, but I definitely don't do it all the time.

A rereading of Frazer's "Golden Bough" may well be timely and serve as incisive commentary, albeit in a manner that substitutes latterday political and ideological religions and zealots for those from antiquity. Or put differently, justice and mercy, both, are primary, are foundational principles of America's jurisprudence and Constitutional conventions. Nothing that the Pres. did contravenes those basic tenets.

jukeboxgrad,

Witnesses were being questioned by jurors (at the trial)? Really? Tell me more. I don't recall running into that before. Or maybe you're talking about the grand jury. Anyway, you surely have your own private secret transcript to prove this claim, right? Please share.

Well, you obviously were not following the unofficial non-trascript being published by bloggers during the trial because, yes, after both counsels had ended their questioning of a witness, the Jury was allowed to submit quesitons to the Judge, who would then decide which questions could be put to the Jury, the Judge read those questions aloud and the witness answered.

The fact that you are un-aware that was going on indicate you have no clue what actually happened at the trial at all.

And yes, Miller did clearly state on the stand at the Libby trial she had other sources about Wilson's wife and she stayed in jail to protect them, not Libby. That statement was also brought out by a juror question IIRC.

"Wilson's report was taken as either not dispositive or possible supporting the claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake"

It is the Additional Views section written by Republicans, not the main bipartisan report, which promotes the idea that Wilson's report vindicates the 16 words. Nice job regurgitating an exceedingly common distortion.

This statement on your part is false. Just to set the record right, you might want to check out this link:

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

It's the Senate SSCI report.

Conclusions start on page 72 (page 82 of the PDF).

Take a look at Conclusion #13

The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Formost analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau ofIntelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

Contrary to your claims, that is in the main report approved by both Republicans and Democrats.

Also, check out #14:

The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

Once again, a conclusion agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats.

And #19 puts the blame for the 16 words clearly on the shoulders of the CIA, not the president:

Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union.
Once again, a finding made and agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats.

The conclusions that you were refering too that were only in the Republican portion of the suplimental report are:

Since I know you won't actually read it, I'll post the key element up top

While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report

and

I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

What cannot be found, however, are two conclusions upon which the Committee's Democrats would not agree. While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to
appear in the report:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger wassuggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee.

The former ambassador's wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador's wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy
Chief of a division in the CIA's Directorate of Operations which said, "[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.

Conclusion: Rather than speaking publicly about his actual
experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.

At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the
Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador's comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents "may have been forged because 'the
dates were wrong and the names were wrong,'" could not have been based on the former ambassador's actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador's trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador's trip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or datesin the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names
and dates in the CIA's reports and said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.

Following the Vice President's review of an intelligence report regarding a possible uranium deal, he asked his briefer for the CIA's analysis of the issue. It was this request which generated Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger. The former ambassador's public comments suggesting that the
Vice President had been briefed on the information gathered during his trip is not correct, however. While the CIA responded to the Vice President's request for the Agency's analysis, they never provided the information gathered by the former Ambassador. The former ambassador, in an NBC Meet the Press interview on July 6, 2003, said, "The office of the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there." The former ambassador was speaking on the basis of what he believed should have happened based on his former government
experience, but he had no knowledge that this did happen.
These and other public comments from the former ambassador,
such as comments that his report "debunked" the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public's understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story. The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger- Iraq uranium deal.

During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it
may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

ranger: "The fact that you are un-aware that was going on indicate you have no clue what actually happened at the trial at all."

Uh, no. "The fact that [I was] un-aware that was going on" indicates only that I was unaware that was going on. Thanks for telling me. And thanks for giving us another example of your usual practice, of claiming that A means B, when in fact A only means A.

I have very high regard for Marcy and Firedoglake and everyone involved, but nevertheless I have only a limited amount of interest in any "unofficial non-trascript."

"Miller did clearly state on the stand at the Libby trial she had other sources about Wilson's wife and she stayed in jail to protect them, not Libby."

Wow, that's interesting. "Not Libby?" Really? Are you sure you didn't mean to say 'not just Libby?' Do you realize what you just claimed? You claimed that Miller was not in jail to protect Libby. This goes beyond what you said before, which is that she was in jail to protect some other people in addition to Libby (or at least that's the way I understood you before, because your actual words were a little vague on this precise point). Now you're claiming she was in jail only to protect those other people, "not Libby." Wow. Are you sure? This is breaking news. Why have you been keeping this a secret? This is quite a claim, since it's directly at odds with what she wrote in her famous article.

Since you're claiming that you learned this via the "unofficial non-trascript," it should be simple enough for you to show us the proper citation. Otherwise it would be wise to assume you're simply making it up, since you have made up so many other things. In other words, you have no credibility whatsoever. We'll be waiting patiently while you find that source.

"For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."

You are correct that those words appear in the main (bipartisan) section of the report. In my opinion, that statement does not indicate that Wilson's report vindicates the 16 words, because it indicates the INR dissent from CIA (and that dissent is pointedly omitted from Bond's Additional Views section). The main part of the report also says this (p. 46):

CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue

There are various other similar remarks. What Bond did in his Additional Views section, and what you're doing here, is to completely gloss over this. Simple question: if the report didn't add "any new information," then how on earth is it possible that it "lent more credibility" to anything? Those ideas are mutually exclusive.

The only part that theoretically "lent more credibility" to the 16 words is the business about "expanding commercial relations" (p. 43-44). Trouble is, folks like you and Bond are trying to rewrite history, by retroactively inflating the importance of those words. At the time, those words were obviously not taken seriously, for all sorts of good reasons (I detailed some of those reasons here). The fact that they weren't taken seriously is indicated in statements like this: "CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information." It's only after Wilson wrote his op-ed that Bushists began a campaign to retroactively inflate the importance of those words and pretend they were taken seriously at the time. Trouble is, they weren't.

Speaking of statements that shouldn't be taken seriously, when are you going to explain why you presented (at least) three different, contradictory statements regarding the discussions that took place between Libby and Cheney? And of course there's a very long list of other things we're still waiting for you to explain.

jukeboxgrad,

Uh, no. "The fact that [I was] un-aware that was going on" indicates only that I was unaware that was going on. Thanks for telling me.

I see, so you are a self appointed authority on Libby's guilt without even following the trial an weighing the evidence for yourself. Of course you don't need to look at the evidence, your ideology convinces you of Libby's guilt without any need for evidence.

"CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information."

Which completely controdicts Joe Wilson's claim that his trip "disproved" the report.

Even if you disregard: For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal...

You are still left with the fact that Joe Wilson misrepresented the results of his trip.

ranger: "It [jurors asking questions of witnesses] happened numerous other times during the trial"

I know that now, and I thanked you for informing me. I didn't ask you to prove this. It's quite charming how you are presenting proof of something I didn't ask you to prove, at the same moment you are declining to show proof for all sorts of things I have asked you to prove.

You've told so many whopping lies it's hard to know where to begin, but here's a reminder regarding one recent one. You made this remarkable claim: that Miller wasn't in jail to protect Libby. Here are your words, in case you already forget them:

Miller did clearly state on the stand at the Libby trial she had other sources about Wilson's wife and she stayed in jail to protect them, not Libby.

I challenged your claim, here. We're still waiting for your proof.

"your ideology convinces you of Libby's guilt without any need for evidence"

That's pretty funny, coming from you, since I routinely back up my claims with proof, whereas you back up almost all your claims with absolutely nothing. And then when challenged, you duck, spin, and try to change the subject.

And since you're such an expert on the trial, we're very eager to hear you explain why you said this:

the defense even moved for summary judgement on the Miller count

Are we discussing the same trial? In the Libby trial, there was no "Miller count." And what's interesting about you making this claim is that you repeated the claim even after I proved it was baloney. As has been pointed out, you are outrageously shameless. A perfect Bushist.

"Which completely controdicts Joe Wilson's claim that his trip 'disproved' the report."

Uh, no. Wilson didn't claim he found out anything particularly new. That's the whole point. Prior to Wilson's trip, it was already obvious to lots of people (like INR) that nothing was going on. Here's what Wilson found out: there was nothing going on. And Wilson never claimed he "disproved" anything (you put that word in quote marks; who are you quoting?). It's generally impossible to prove a negative, so Wilson couldn't 'prove' that Saddam was not trying to get yellowcake from Niger. All Wilson said is this:

if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them

That is the key statement in Wilson's op-ed. Wilson is just saying that he tried to find evidence that Saddam had sought Nigerien yellowcake, and couldn't find any solid evidence to support that idea. That's a simple, truthful statement.

Bush was free to respond to Wilson by showing evidence that Wilson didn't know about. But there was no such evidence. Bush had no non-forged evidence whatsoever. In other words, Bush was not in a position to engage Wilson in a substantive way, so instead Bush conducted a secret campaign to smear Wilson with the following lie: Plame gives good junket (i.e., Plame sent Wilson; he's not a qualified person; he's someone who only gets work, even unpaid work, when his wife hires him). Bush didn't mind that this was a lie, and he also didn't mind that this meant outing a covert agent. Bush didn't have much to work with, but he needed to use whatever he had. It was extremely important to crush Wilson, because Nigerien yellowcake was at the heart of the nuclear claim, and the nuclear claim was at the heart of the WMD claim, and the WMD claim was the key rationale behind the war.

"For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility"

Nice job not even trying to explain how that makes any sense, given that SSCI also said this:

CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information

"Joe Wilson misrepresented the results of his trip"

Uh, no. And I'm sure you'll bring proof of that claim just as soon as you bring proof for the mountain of other specious claims you've made in this thread.

jukeboxgrad,

Maybe you should take the time to actually read the bogs of the trial. There you might learn a few things.

For example, you would learn that, contrary to your assertations that Armitage co-operated with the investigation, he went to Marc Grossman's house the night before Marc's first FBI interview to tell him what he (Armitage) had already told investigators. That sounds like Armitage wanted to make sure Grossman wouldn't tell the FBI anything that conflicted with his story. So, in a way that is co-operating with the investigators (making sure all the witnesses say that same thing).

You would also discover that every single witness changed their story about what they remembered and when, some of the repeatedly. That is why I said

"nobody has a significant memory" of speaking about Plame. Now, as I explained above, I did not specify the time frame which I was refering too, but I have since explained that I was refering to the time frame before the second week in July.

I still stand by that statement and challenged you to produce one prosucution witness who's memory and testemony of events has not changed significantly since their first FBI interview.

You will also note that I have never said what Libby said was true, but rather that there is a big gap between a statement not being true a statement being a deliberate lie designed to obstruct justice. It could very well be the result of a poor memory about things that were not very important at the time. Given that everybody else's memory about this very same issue was so poor concerning events beetween the second week of June and the second week of July, Libby's poor memory seems rather to fit a broad general pattern rather than stand out as a special circumstance that needed to be prosecuted.

And, just to make the point, here is a list of other people's poor memories:

Richard Armitage: Forgot he had a conversation with Bob Woodward about Wilson's wife until almost 2 years after his initial FBI interview.

Marc Grossman: Forgot his conversation with Libby about Wilson's wife was face to face. He originally claimed it was three seperate conversations over the phone.

CIA Briefer: Forgot any conversation about Wilson before the second week of July, but will accept that such a conversation may have taken place because he has been shown hand written notes which refer to the topic.

CIA Liaison: Forgot he ever said anything about Wilson's wife to Libby (and stated so to the CIA IG office and the FBI and the Grand Jury) until nearly a year later, when, having read that Libby was being investigated for leaking Plame's identity, he began feeling guilty and now believes he must have told Libby. This individual stated on the stand that his memory of what he said to the FBI differs significantly from the FBI report and said in his second Grand Jury appearance, when read back statements he made in his first appearance that he didn't remember ever saying that and couldn't believe he actually did.

Ms. Martin: Forgot that the conversation she had with the CIA liaisons about Wilson's wife happened in the second week of June rather than the second week of July for a year. Her memory was "corrected" because she recalled that the recognized who Wilson was on Meet the Press on July 6th, which means she must have had that conversation before that date.

FBI Agent Bond: Forgot ciritical parts of her interviews with Libby, having to admit on the stand, when confronted with notes of the interviews, that the final report of the interview that was submitted was wrong in several places. In particular, the statement that Libby "addimently denied" some events was false. The notes of the interview clearly show Libby refused to deny those events, he simply stated that he couldn't recall them, but wouldn't deny that they may have happened.

Judy Miller: Forgot about any conversation about Wilson or Wilson's wife during her June 23 inverview with Libby until after she looked at her notebooks. She made no mention of that interview in her first Grand Jury appearance. Miller has also admitted that she had the name Joe Wilson in her notebook before she ever talked to Libby about him, but she has no memory of what that notation was refering. Miller also stated that she had multiple sources on Joe Wilson, the Niger trip, and Wilson's wife, but she can no longer remember who those people are.

Tim Russert: Forgot that he initially told the FBI it was possible that the subject of Wilson's Wife came up, but he doesn't recall that. Unfortunately, the FBI lost those notes (funny how such critical evidence exculpitory for Libby would just vanish, but I leave it up to you to decide if the is purposeful or simply incompetence on the part of the FBI). The FBI agent has now admitted that Russert did not rule out the fact that Wilson's Wife may have been discussed, but the defense was prohibited by the judge from calling Russert back to the stand to confront him with this fact.

Part of the cause of all of this confusion is the fact that there were two waves of Wilson stories roughly a month appart. Wilson initially made his charges through Nick Kristoff anonymousely. That set off the first set of inquiries into who the ambasador was. Then Wilson published his op-ed, which kicked of another round of questions about who he was and why he was sent. The fact that many people remembered conversations that took place after the first round of Wilson stories (where Wilson was not identified) as having taken place after the second round of Wilson stories (in which Wilson was clearly the source) is not surprising.

It is all there in the trial non-transcripts if you choose to take the time to read them (you of course have to read the defense part as well).

Given that massive amount of bad recollection, sending Libby to jail seems "excessive" to me.

The fact that you didn't know that there were juror questions during the trial indicates more that just that you didn't know that fact, it indicates that you don't know what evidence was actually presented by witness at the trial.

As to Wilson's claims, you are attempting to limit the entire realm of discussion to his op-ed. But the op-ed was only a small part of what Wilson was saying.

Wilson claimed to Nick Kristoff that he had personally debunked the Niger Yellowcake report and that the CIA knew it was false at the time of the State of the Union address. That claim was false. Conclusion #13 from the Niger portion of the SSCI report clearly shows that the CIA took Wilson's report as actually confirming, not debunking the idea that Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Niger (that conclusion was agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans).

Wilson claimed he was sent "at the behest" of the Vice President and the the Vice President was briefed specificly on the results of the trip. That is where the charge that the administration deliberately lied sprang from. That claim was false. The SSCI makes clear that Wilson was sent by the CIA and that the plan to send Wilson was already propsed on paper a day before the OVP was even briefed on the Niger issue (though it was only at the Libby trial that we learned the specific date the OVP was informed of the Niger report). The SSCI report also makes clear that the CIA never told the OVP that they were sending anyone to specificly research the Niger report. The SSCI also makes clear that the CIA never reported back to the OVP about the results of Wilson's trip (and if the had, the CIA analysts would have reported back that they though it supported the initial report or added nothing new, not that the report had been "debunked").

So, the factual response to Wilson was simply:

He was not sent at the behest of the Vice President, he was sent by the CPD in the CIA in response to many government agencies seeking clarification of the Niger report.

His report did not change any attitudes about the Niger report.

The existance of his trip was never reported to the OVP.

The results of his trip were never reported to the OVP.

Up until the State of the Union address the CIA was standing by the Niger report.

All of those facts were agreed to by both the Democrats and the Republicans in the SSCI report.

If you read Ms. Martin's testimony on the stand you will see that there was a specific, factual response to Wilson's claims being presented to the press and Wilson's wife isn't anywhere in it. Your claim that "the only response" was to bring up the fact that Wilson was sent by his wife is simply not true.

ranger: "every single witness changed their story about what they remembered and when, some of the repeatedly. That is why I said 'nobody has a significant memory' of speaking about Plame."

There you go again, telling a brazen, shameless lie. You just put the following words in quotes:

nobody has a significant memory

You are purportedly quoting yourself. You are pretending you said those words in this thread. Trouble is, you didn't. What you actually said is this:

nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame

And no matter how you say it, you're lying. Libby's grand jury testimony includes a detailed description of the conversation he had with Cheney in early June, where Cheney told Libby that Plame worked for CIA. This conversation is discussed in the testimony in a number of places. One place is here:

Q. So the conversation with the Vice President was some time before June 12th. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was that the first time you had heard from anyone, as far as you can recall, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have a recollection of this being a new fact as you heard it?
A. Yes, sir.

A long passage where Libby describes the conversation in detail can be found if you search for this text: "why don't you tell us, first, what information the Vice President told you he had learned." That's in the file called gx1t.txt, which is Libby's testimony of 3/5/04.

This conversation was obviously "significant:" to Libby, to Cheney, and to the rest of us. And Libby obviously had "a significant memory" of this conversation. That's why he was able to explain it in detail, even though nine months had elapsed.

"I did not specify the time frame which I was refering too, but I have since explained that I was refering to the time frame before the second week in July."

Indeed, you "did not specify the time frame." Instead, you made a sweeping statement, that "nobody actually remembers any significant conversations about Plame." Then, when challenged, you backpedaled and made this claim, which is only marginally less absurd:

All of those conversations were after Libby's July 10th or 11th phone conversation with Russert

And now you are essentially repeating the same claim:

I have since explained that I was refering to the time frame before the second week in July

You seem to be asserting, again, that there were no "significant conversations about Plame" in the "time frame before the second week in July." Really? Do you live on a planet where "June 12th" takes place after "July 10th or 11th?" You still haven't explained why Cheney telling Libby about Plame is something you consider not "significant." Especially since this conversation was significant enough to Libby that he was able to describe it in detail, nine months later. It's only one of the most significant conversations in the entire narrative. But that's just here on Planet Earth. On Planet Ranger, things are different.

"I still stand by that statement"

Of course you do, because you're an incorrigible, shameless, brazen liar who is apparently used to hanging around with other wingnuts who don't mind that you make statements completely untethered from reality.

"[I] challenged you to produce one prosucution witness who's memory and testemony of events has not changed significantly since their first FBI interview"

The weasel-word in that sentence is "significantly." You have a very elastic concept of what that word means, along with lots of other words.

Here's the bottom line: the witnesses weren't on trial. Libby was. The testimony of everyone else, in aggregate, was considered sufficiently reliable to overwhelm Libby's 'amnesia' defense. You can nitpick all you want about the foibles of human memory, and how various witnesses displayed those foibles. They were still considered more credible than Libby, especially when evaluated in aggregate. Libby's key problem is that a bunch of government employees remembered discussing Plame with Libby in 6/03 (even if they had some problems with exact details of those conversations). Libby essentially claimed that as of 7/03, he didn't remember those conversations at all. That's just not credible, to the jury or to anyone else with a clue.

"Given that everybody else's memory about this very same issue was so poor concerning events beetween the second week of June and the second week of July, Libby's poor memory seems rather to fit a broad general pattern rather than stand out as a special circumstance that needed to be prosecuted."

Trouble is, no one else had 'memory problems' as severe as Libby's. Not even close. But I realize you deny that plain fact, just like you deny all sorts of other plain facts.

"here is a list of other people's poor memories"

I am not going to bother going through that list thoroughly to find out how many outright fabrications you included. I notice you included no citations whatsover. Your track record is that you have no credibility, and only a fool would trust a word you say when you do not present clear proof to back up the statement.

"Miller also stated that she had multiple sources on Joe Wilson, the Niger trip, and Wilson's wife, but she can no longer remember who those people are."

That is another outright lie. Indeed, Miller said she was protecting other sources, in addition to Libby. But she also stated clearly that those other sources were regarding completely unrelated matters: they were "unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife." In other words, they were not "sources on Joe Wilson, the Niger trip, and Wilson's wife." Miller claimed she was afraid Fitz might ask her about completely unrelated matters, and force her to burn sources regarding those completely unrelated matters. And we've been through this. This is yet another example of how you shamelessly, brazenly repeat a lie even after I prove that it's a lie.

Aside from this, Miller did say that she thinks she might have heard about Plame from someone in addition to Libby, but she didn't said what she heard. In other words, she may have heard that Plame was married to Wilson. This was never a secret and it means nothing.

Speaking of Miller, why did you claim she wasn't in jail to protect Libby?

"Wilson initially made his charges through Nick Kristoff anonymousely. That set off the first set of inquiries into who the ambasador was. Then Wilson published his op-ed, which kicked of another round of questions about who he was and why he was sent."

Nice job revealing how ignorant you are. Post-Kristof and pre-Wilson there was an important article by Pincus. It was important enough that Cheney and Libby discussed it, and it was important enough that Libby talked to Pincus. Why are you forgetting this?

"It is all there in the trial non-transcripts if you choose to take the time to read them"

If your claims are proven there, then show us the exact text. Of course you won't, because as usual you're making up all sorts of things.

"Wilson claimed to Nick Kristoff that he had personally debunked the Niger Yellowcake report"

What Kristof reported is that Wilson had decided the documents were forged. There's nothing remarkable about this, because CIA had verbatim text of the documents prior to Wilson's trip, and this text was enough to indicate the forgery. More details on this are here.

Later on, Wilson makes some coy statements regarding whether or not he had seen the documents, around the time of his trip. It's not hard to understand why he did this. I explain that here.

"Wilson claimed … that the CIA knew it was false at the time of the State of the Union address."

Prior to SOTU, in 10/02, CIA insisted that Bush remove the Niger claim from a speech in Ohio. So there's no question that CIA (and lots of other people) had severe doubts long before SOTU.

CIA had the verbatim text in 2/02, and this text clearly revealed the forgery. I think it's clear that CIA knew, at that time, that the claim was false. Yet certain people in CIA pretended to take the documents seriously for more than a year. Why? This has never been explained.

"Conclusion #13 from the Niger portion of the SSCI report clearly shows that the CIA took Wilson's report as actually confirming"

There you go again, repeating the same distortions, without even making a pretense of addressing what I've already said about that, here.

"Wilson claimed he was sent 'at the behest' of the Vice President"

You are suggesting that those words a direct quote of Wilson. Really? Show us where he said that.

Wilson's desciption of Cheney's role is essentially identical to SSCI's description of Cheney's role. That's documented here.

"and the the Vice President was briefed specificly on the results of the trip"

Wilson made it clear that he wasn't claiming he knew this for a fact, but rather he was making an assumption, based on past experience:

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include … a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

"it was only at the Libby trial that we learned the specific date the OVP was informed of the Niger report"

It's true that a briefing took place on a specific date. However, you are claiming to know that this was the first briefing, i.e., that OVP knew nothing whatsover about "the Niger report" prior to this briefing. Really? Where's your proof? The "Niger report" was in CIA hands at least a week prior to this briefing. Why would anyone assume that word wouldn't spread to OVP, prior to the formal briefing?

"The SSCI report also makes clear that the CIA never told the OVP that they were sending anyone to specificly research the Niger report."

Really? What text in SSCI supposedly supports this claim?

"The SSCI also makes clear that the CIA never reported back to the OVP about the results of Wilson's trip"

Really? What text in SSCI supposedly supports this claim? As far as I can tell, SSCI says only this (p. 43):

The report was widely distributed in routine channels.

As usual, you make sweeping claims without even making a pretense of offering proof.

"Up until the State of the Union address the CIA was standing by the Niger report."

It seems that you're trying to set a record for number of blatant lies told in one thread. You're suggesting CIA never expressed reservations about the Niger claim. I guess you've never seen SSCI, p. 56:

Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, “remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired fiom the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory.”

I guess when CIA says "the Brits have exaggerated this issue," that's your idea of CIA "standing by the Niger report."

"The existance of his trip was never reported to the OVP."

Really? Prove it.

"The results of his trip were never reported to the OVP."

Really? Prove it.

"Your claim that 'the only response' was to bring up the fact that Wilson was sent by his wife is simply not true."

There you go again, making up phony quotes, and inventing a straw man. You put the following words in quote marks, indicating that I said those words:

the only response

Trouble is, I never said that. What I said on this subject is here. Yes, 'Plame sent him' was not absolutely the only thing Bush et al ever said to try to counter Wilson. But it was the main thing they said, because they had nothing substantive to work with; they had nothing better, in other words. And they said it secretly, because they knew it was wrong, for multiple reasons: it ('Plame sent Wilson') was a false statement, and it amounted to a release of classified information ('Plame works for CIA').

"We're talking about dismissal of a count"

You're quoting something FDL said here. Trouble is, there was no "dismissal of a count." There was dismissal of part of a count. And even though the Miller portion of Count 1 was dismissed, the jury found Libby guilty on Count 1 anyway.

"The Judge dismissed the Miller count"

There was no "Miller count." Anyway, the jury pulled a clever trick: finding Libby guilty on a count that the judge dismissed! Imagine that.

Someone else is confused about this, in the same way you are. They made essentially the same bogus claim about a "Miller count." I dismantled that claim in detail, with links to primary documents, in another thread.

By the way, when are you going to explain why you claimed that Miller wasn't in jail to protect Libby?