Libby Found Guilty
 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After deliberating 10 days, a federal jury Tuesday found I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, guilty on four of five counts in his perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

Libby was convicted of:

-- obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;

-- making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;

-- perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;

-- a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.

Jurors cleared Libby of a second count of making a false statement relating to a conversation he had with writer Matt Cooper, formerly of Time magazine.

Full Story: Libby guilty on 4 of 5 counts in CIA leak trial

And interestingly, now the media replays all aspects of the story, not just the aspects that have to do with Libby's charges. Libby's conviction, although having very little to do with the more substantial issues of the case, apparently means that the media can trot the whole initial story of government retribution out there.

The conviction apparently, and I'm going by quotes from jurors, is based on their belief that he must have remembered conversations that he said he forgot.

Argh. What a waste of time and money.

Anyone want to talk about Sandy Berger?

Absolutely what a waste of time and money. I hope Bush pardons him soon. For him to spend time in jail would be completely absurd.

In some ways, I do agree with you.
However I do find it rather interesting that a few years ago, not much was said about the time and money spent on a few other investigations and trials that went just about the same way.....;)

Why did you think Moveon was formed?

A lot was said about the case a few years ago along those lines, a lot.

And since the real issue of what exactly was leaked, whether it was illegal to leak it, and who did the leaking wasn't even addressed by this case, it's kind of seems like a silly comparison anyway.

True to a point.
I was thinking more of the larger picture-one side is all hell bent for leather for investigations then all of a sudden does not like them.
And in fact, prior to this election, was telling its core to get out and vote or we will be on the other side......

Another story, that is now getting some news coverage is the sudden sacking of several Federal ADA's around the county for what seems to be political reasons rather than performance.

Will be rather interesting to see what comes up in the next 20-50 years.

But you realize that Clinton fired ALL the US attorneys when he took office, right?

I thought the Clinton-Monica thing was stupid. He should have been censured, but the investigation was dumb. Now the investigation into the Rose law firm and all that shady stuff in Arkansas is completely legit. I think time will show just how deep the Clintons were into some very disturbing stuff back home.

I just don't like the idea of someone getting in trouble for lying about an investigation that yielded no substantive wrongdoing. A lot of people are saying he's a fall guy, and thats true. However, I don't think he's a fall guy for Cheney or Rove, rather he's a fall guy for Fitzgerald & Co. who found the need to continue an empty investigation. What a waste. I'm gonna be furious if Bush doesn't pardon him. Only a few people are still going to bat for the administration, and Scooter was one. If Bush now does what Scooter didn't do, which is crumble under political and societal pressure, I'll be incensed.

he lied to congress

I got the impression that it was more that Tim Russert flatly denied the conversation that Libby claimed to have had with him.

Sure. Most presidents do. US Attorneys serve at the will of the president, and most new presidents want people of their choice in the position.

The issue right now is not the fact that US Attorneys serve at the will of the president. It's a combination of the allegation that these particular US Attorneys were fired essentially as retribution for not being political enough and the use of a provision of the Patriot Act to replace them with interim US Attorneys, which bypasses the need for Senate confirmation.

I don't see that happening until December '08 or January '09. That's why Libby will need to stretch the request for a new trial/appeal process out as long as possible, and try to get a court to stay the judgment pending appeal.

It's tradition. That's always what gets people in trouble in Washington -- it's not the deed itself, it's the cover-up and lying afterward.

Yeah, it does seem pretty common. I too doubt Bush will pardon him soon, but his appeal should eat up a fairly substantial bulk of time. I don't want him to do it immediately, but I think he should do it if his appeal doesn't work. Its not like he's got a lot of political capital on the line.

The challenge is going to be keeping Libby out of prison pending appeal. I don't practice federal criminal law, but I don't think that's the way it usually works.

While I think this whole thing has been a waste of time and money... I want to see at least someone come to justice for this.

Outing Valerie Plame could have gotten her killed, and she definitely can't work in a lot of places because of this. It also could have gotten her agents killed in their home countries - human intelligence is a dirty business, but it's important nonetheless. If we can't protect our assets overseas, especially from being outed by government officials for political reasons, how can we expect or hope that anyone will work with us?

Maybe it's just my somewhat "insider" opinion but compromising clandestine operations for political reasons is completely ridiculous. I'd rather Libby be a drain on tax dollars by being in jail than have other outings like this.

1) No proof she was "outed" for political reasons, 2) very sketchy as to her covert status, with CIA officials saying it was highly unlikely she would have gone back overseas at the time of the "outing" 3) I'm still troubled by the aspect that people investigating on behalf of the government took it upon themselves to undermine their own government's foreign policy decisions. The politics in this situation do not just extend to what happened with the VP's office.

1. She should not have been outed period. Political, non-political, it still compromised the cases she was working on when she was overseas. Counterintelligence is a nastier business than clandestine operations. If counter-intel officials overseas could place people with her, no matter how long ago, they would come under investigation for espionage. The punishment for espionage in most other countries is execution (for treason). Here, it wavers between life in prison and the death penalty.

2. CIA officials will say anything to get people out of their business. It's highly common to see people doing a "home tour" at HQ or people that are home indefinitely to get put on a TDY tour if they're the person that best fits the job. People that are supposed to be on a home tour for two years have been sent back out within weeks of the start of their tour. While they say it's "highly unlikely," there's no such thing as that amount of certainty until a clandestine officer retires completely. And while she may not have been part of a covert operation at the time, she has been part of several covert operations that were all compromised by her outing. If she'd been retired for quite some time, it wouldn't be that big a deal, but she was not retired. Many clandestine officers have published memoirs, but any recent memoir on recent operations have huge redacted portions that compromise missions if they're published.

3. The politics of all of this is astounding, I agree with you on that. I think had there not been as much media attention, they'd be able to salvage some of the relationships with assets overseas. They've undermined CIA operations, the safety of assets and field officers alike, the government's foreign policy decisions (whether or not you or I as citizens agree with them is an entirely different thread), the legitimacy of the VP's office as traditionally NOT a place of leaks (traditionally, Congress is seen as the main source of leaks)... and so on. It's really sickening.

That doesn't mean that I don't want to see someone come to justice for it all.

I fully agree that we should protect our agents. I think it was a mistake to let the leak get out. However, Fitzgerald couldn't get anything substantive. I'm not trying to be dismissive of the magnitude involved with revealing an agent's cover, but what we seem to be dealing with is a lapse in judgment that thankfully resulted in little harm. If it turns out that there was a political vendetta against Wilson, I'm with you that everyone involved should pay. However, the only obvious spite I see is the hatred the Wilson's had for the administration.

Unfortunately, as we can all agree, this "scandal" took a political turn. The left isn't pissed off because the VP's office made a mistake and outted an agent, they're upset because they outted a liberal agent who's husband was railing against the administration.

I don't agree that Libby should pay dearly for this. Here's a guy who has devoted himself to public service and got caught up in a situation handled poorly on all sides. I'm not taking a no harm-no foul position, but prison would be ridiculous in my opinion.

I still don't understand why there wasn't more focus on other figures, like Armitage. I guess he's not connected enough to feed the beast in this instance.

Armitage, I agree, should be facing much much much much more than he has in this issue. In my opinion, he's the true snake, whether or not he was "told to" by other people - it's like when an officer in the military tells an enlistedman to do something that is WRONG - the military expects the enlistedman not to follow the order.

I'm not pissed on the left side, right side, up side, down side... Wilson's "hatred" for the administration is his political opinion... none of my beezwax as far as I'm concerned. But... Novak's column was a response to Wilson's Op-Ed piece. Retaliation.

I'm sure there's a lot more harm to it than what we know without access to classified information - she was, after all, part of the counter-proliferation operation in regard to Iraq.

Fitzgerald got caught up in the legaleese of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act... Was she living overseas for 6 years? Was she working overseas and living at home for 6 years? Was it within 5 years?

Too many questions to go that route... in fact, I'd think it'd be very hard to get someone convicted that way. That's one of those things where it's gotta be the exactly right case to get someone convicted - the law is written in such a way that allows a lot of reasonable doubt because it's just too damned confusing.

I completely understand what you're saying with that, but IMO going after Libby serves no genuine purpose. Novaks column was returning fire against Wilson, but how that came about will probably always be unclear. I don't care what Wilson's opinion is, but when a liberal uses information gained in a governmental capacity to enact an agenda, I think people have a right to be concerned. Of course theres nothing for him to get in legal trouble for, but it annoys me that people are acting like he's just some innocent governmental actor who got worked over because he didn't side with the administration.

The reason they've gone after Libby is that Libby knew that Plame was a covert agent, and, while Armitage's comments were published first, he did reveal her to Judith Miller just days later. If we're going for legality in regard to the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, the one thing it is clear on is knowingly revealing the identity. Armitage, according to what he's said about it, which isn't much, knew that she worked for the CIA, but did not know that she was a clandestine officer, much less that she was on non-official cover (meaning she did not have diplomatic immunity and, if caught, would face espionage charges in whatever country she happened to be operating).

In my mind, Plame should never have been involved with Wilson. Her connection with him compromised her cover and opened her up for outing from political opponents, etc. He never should have EVER EVER mentioned his trip to Africa - he had as heavy a hand in outing her as many others in this case, IMO.

For the movie - they say that the stars in consideration for it are Richard Gere and Sharon Stone. Stone I can see - Plame's a pretty blonde, Stone's a pretty blonde... ok... But Richard Gere? Come on. Wilson is not, nor will he ever be, nor has he ever been, as attractive as Richard Gere.

I mean, Chris Cooper doesn't look like Robert Hanssen either, and O'Neil definitely doesn't look like Ryan Phillipe, but even considering Wilson to be anywhere on par with Richard Gere is offending to this Gere fan!

I was under the impression that they didn't have very much evidence pointing to Libby's knowledge that she was a covert agent. I read this as recently as yesterday, but I guess it could be wrong.

I just don't think the movie will be very exciting. Haven't seen Breach yet, but I want to. O'Neill went to Auburn.

There's no physical evidence - very much a "he said" etc type of thing but it definitely is easier to point to Libby as knowingly telling vs. Armitage.

I will not go see a movie in which Richard Gere is chosen to portray Wilson - no matter how much I love Richard Gere.

Breach is good - There are some points that are completely fabricated (there's one scene that when you see it you'll be like "um... I highly doubt that happened" and if you PM me after you see it I'll verify which scene is completely fabricated if you like), but it's pretty good. I've been studying Hanssen for a couple of classes this semester and didn't even know Breach was about him - I can't believe I didn't catch that it was about him in the previews I saw, in fact I didn't even know it was about a true story (I think I turned my brain off that day?).

The main thing I didn't like about it is that they didn't really get into the tradecraft of all of that... A lot of people who aren't pretty well educated as far as spying goes won't have a clue what it means to do a dead drop until they see Hanssen do is... and don't understand that even though Hanssen is completely brilliant - he's an idiot to pick that dead drop spot.

You must not be taking into consideration that Hollywood just might possibly embellish the story to add a little drama and excitement. Maybe?

Seriously, is there already a movie in the works, or is it just specualtion?

According to Wikipedia it's already in the works. Scheduled for release this summer from Warner Bros.

MysticCat, you are correct about Russert; he did deny what Libby claimed. The quote from the juror I read yesterday basically said that it was implausible that Libby would have forgotten the information. (I misremembered Russert's testimony as more ambiguous than it was, but I read up on it last night.)

I'm not that worried about firing US attorneys. I think we can ride out the next couple of years (a year and three quarters, but who's counting?) without too much trouble. Of course I don't know; I hope I'm right.

I don't think Bush has been a particularly good president, but let's remember what our choices were.

Wilson never should have been the one to go on the trip, period. Did people imagine that no one would ask why Wilson was chosen? What would have been an appropriate and honest response to that other than outing his wife?

And to follow up on a previous discussion about the media, does this conviction seem anything like the scale of Iran-Contra, and yet that's in the first paragraph of almost every story? Sure it's the first conviction of an administration official since, but I think their overplaying it.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree - and I'll try and do so in as a completely non-biased and neutral way as possible...

While Plame did no fit the strict/legal definition of a "covert" operative, the revealing of her identity did compromise a CIA 'front company' which then compromised any of the operations and operatives (covert and otherwise) connected to that company - so while strictly speaking the letter of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, there is some legal wrangling over whether the spirit of the Act was infringed upon.

However all that aside, the revealing of her status as an agent is a clear violation of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, since her status as an agent and the CIA's front company wasn't declassified - as to who is accountable in the chain of disclousure (Rove, Cheney, Libby)that is another arguement for the courts.

Totally irrelevant but somewhat interesting:

Valerie Plame is a Pi Phi from Penn State.