Well Larry, lets just add it this one to the long laundry list here...

~OGD~

Note to Josh Marshall.

Your name is at the top of the masthead. Larry Johnson, with his jokes about prison rape, has entered Ann Coulter territory. Time to rein in the nutjobs.

All Bush has to do is pardon Scooter and it's all over.

Larry, two Senior Senators have already publicly said they want to call Libby as a witness to testify about the relationship between OVP and the DOD Office of Special Plans headed by Feith. Levin suggested a public hearing, and said he would subpoena Libby if he did not volunteer. Rockefeller's interest is a little more specific, and he suggests major testimony would be executive, with perhaps a public performance. Rocky believes the OSP is a criminal violation of the 1947 National Security Act, which gives only Congress the power to establish and create commission for an Intelligence Agency, and thus the OVP's involvement in establishing the OSP could be criminal.

I feel sure that after today Libby preversely likes being found guilty, and he will take this opportunity to ignore the subpoena, and thus get some counts of Contempt piled upon his lies and Obstruction convictions. And contempt of congress works a little like contempt of court, and just as Judy had to spend long hours in the Alexandria Jailhouse, Libby could be looking at something similar from which even a Bush Pardon might not be able to free him. Likewise, I doubt if Bush can cover him with Executive Privilege at this point. In fact I think in some wierd basement corner of the Capitol there is actually a congressionally controlled cell for the use of those being held in Contempt. Hasn't been used in ages, but maybe they could dust it off.

Wouldn't be nice, if more charges will be filed after Bush leaves office, with no chance of pardons?

TJ, your noxious and ignorant argument about Plame's status has been refuted ad naseum on other threads.

The CIA sent the case to the DOJ, and the DOJ appointed a Special Prosecuter. Since it is impossible to "leak" a name if a name is public knowledge, I guess we should trust the CIA to know what Plame's status, as a protected person was. (I would tend to trust them more than you, anyway)

The law governing this has such a high bar (it must be proven that the leaker knew and willingly gave out protected information) that it is virtually impossible to prosecute even though it is obvious to any person with more than 3 brain cells that these people knew exactly what they were doing.

That is why the leakers didn't get prosecuted; not because Plame's identity was not protected. For the last time:
If Plame was not a protected source, the CIA would have had NO justification for reporting her outing, and you can bet that John (Let the Eagle Soar) Ashcroft would certainly NOT have apointed Fitzgerald.

Since the people in the White House are free to spread any secret information that they want to, as long as they can then say they didn't know it was secret (what a law!)I guess we should all sleep better now. Maybe at least they will know that they shouldn't lie about it to an FBI agent and then to a Grand Jury...or maybe not.

Well, pardon me!

Jan Knaus

BABBLE, BABBLE, BABBLE;... "not covert" "not covert" "not covert" HONK, HONK, HONK, "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton".... SPIN, SPIN, SPIN;
"No underlying case, no underlying case, no underlying case" BAWK BAWK BAWK.

If the "no underlying case" was a valid defense why didn't Libby's lawyers use it? Maybe its something they can base their appeal on.

Martha Stewart went to jail for a few of the same reasons Libby now stands convicted of, obstruction and lying to investigators, and guess what..... there was 'no underlying case' as no one was indicted for insider trading.

Ken Starr went after Bill Clinton for any number of charges, Vince Foster's death, Travelgate, Ron Brown's death, China/Satellites, rape, for which there was no underlying crime
(except in the warped minds of the wingnuts). Starr finally got Clinton on Monica.

I'm sure a case can be made that there was also "no underlying case" in the Clinton perjury fiasco.

Obviously the "rule of law" is only important when the Republicans are going after a Democrat.

Please answer the question.

sPh

Why do the hardliners like TJKing always argue that Plame didn't have protected status? I've read a number of such posts, none of which contained any documation that proved she wasn't. On the other hand, the pro-Plame comments rely on the fact the CIA asked for an investigation. That supposedly proves the case because if it wasn't true, the CIA wouldn't have been asking for the investigation. OK, it convinced me but why rely on deductions to prove a point?
Plame's status has to be on file someplace. Why doesn't that settle matters? Is it that her file is still classified even after her identification? When the CIA asked for the investigation, did it identify her by name or what?
Just curious.

So 5 years later, it's been proven in a court of law that Libby lied to someone about something concerning the plamegate story, although Libby's lawyer claims he's completely innocent still. If we impeach Cheney for something he did in 2002, it would mean that he was left in power for 6 or 7 years before he was reprimanded. It kind of defeats the purpose of removing someone from power via impeachment although the humiliation will remain with him forever. It's still unbelievable to me how slow these rotten teeth are being pulled.

Artappraiser, here's a link to the Wilson's support group website.  I think some of your questions are addressed. As I understand it, the support group is soliciting contributions to cover legal expenses now.  If there is a remedy involving a money award, those awards will be used to pay off legal expenses, and an amount equal to the contributions the support group raises will go to the Wilson's Trust to be distributed to charitable groups working for whistleblower defense issues. Anything above that will go into the Wilson's pockets, I assume.

Also, don't forget TPM Muckraker's report from last June. There's a link to a copy of the actual suit, as filed (It has since been amended to include Armitage).

Neoboho

Even the jurors all but admitted that Libby was a Cheney/Rove fall guy.

TJoKING- ha ha ha

Another stellar example of the intellect and truth-standards of rabid
wingnuttia.

One has to wonder how we will ever reestablish a reasonable dialogue in the public forum with foamers like TJ running loose. I suspect the best strategy of all (and the most likely to induce hopefully fatal bouts of foaming) would be to ignore and refuse to respond to their stupid, or as Jan says, "noxious and ignorant" arguments.

I mean really, what is the use of trying to reason with people who have abandoned all standards of reasonableness? Whether it's the White House "fixing the facts around the policy" or TJoKERS failing to adapt their rantings to well-established fact, we're all just talking past one another here, as if we were speaking different languages. TJoKING would never in a million years give up his fairy tale about Plame not being covert in the face of facts. And with that handy little lie he can dismiss all other consideration of what's at issue in this case.

You know how when you walk past a raving homeless person on the street and he's trying to engage you in a discussion about UFO's or something obviously beyond your perceptive abilities, outside your ken, you smile and nod and perhaps throw a couple of bucks his way out of concern for his well-being, but you resist being drawn into conversation because you know there is no common ground of understanding to be gained. In a forum like this here at TPM it might just be best to give the loonies a wide berth. Reacting to their fairy tales just encourages them and gives credence to their foaming.

Unfortunately, we have to be a little more proactive when the lying loonies occupy positions of power and control. While prosecuting Scooter is a step in the right direction, striking a small blow for truth and the rule of law (which, by the way, depends entirely upon society's commitment to establishing truth through reasonable means), it strikes me that until we who still value the truth as primary replace the liars in power, all discourse is futile, more of a tomato fight than an exchange of ideas.

There simply is no point in arguing with them unless they agree to abide by some reason-based system of judging the truth, whether it's TJKING or George Bush.

The same crowd that relished the partisan impeachment of Clinton is now calling for a pardon for Scooter Libby.

Fatuous, amoral hypocrites.

HRW Report on Male Prison Rape

As Aaron MacGruder might say, "Read Dummy!" Making jokes about this very brutal element of our society is stupid and offensive. Do you really want to be that guy wishing that someone gets raped? Even Scooter Libby?

The CIA referral regards "disclosure of information". It does not mention Plame, nor does it mention the IIPA law. CIA sends dozens of these referrals every year and only a few make it to indictment. The argument that if CIA requests an investigation, we should just skip a trial and go straight to the electric chair based on the divinity of the Agency is truly a scary assertion coming from the left.

One place where I think you and I agree (I think), is that there should be an investigation to prove if she was covert or not. The trial is over. Why can't they say it. Fitz is negligent not to say so definitively. Not an investigation into the crime, just have congress tell us once and for all, was she or not. They won't do it, because she is not covert.

My guess is Conservatives will be arguing for the truth to come out and the left will be arguing to move on. That alone will tell you the confidence of each side about the veracity of the claim. LJ, is already mumbling that it is too secret, which is the first time he has tried this trial balloon. I think it proves he falls under the category of "please don't let the truth come out".

"...Starr finally got Clinton on Monica.

I'm sure a case can be made that there was also "no underlying case" in the Clinton perjury fiasco...."

That is exactly what the left spent a year arguing. They claimed that since Paula Jones case had temporarily been thrown out, that it was not lying about a material fact, so they said not perjury so they claimed it was perfectly legal. In fact they did news magazine specials about how lying is actually good, sometimes to spare feelings or what if someone had an affair and they were sorry, why divulge it and break up a family. Lying was a saintly act back then.

Not lying was demonic in the 90s.

"...Obviously the "rule of law" is only important when the Republicans are going after a Democrat..."

When the Jones case resumed, the so called "material fact" defense was moot.

Clinton did lie. His admission of guilt resulted in his dibarrment and paying the fines.

Is that true that Starr filed rape charges against Bill Clinton for his sexual assault on Juanita Broderick? I was not aware of that.

If the support fund is there to help whistleblowers, is there any money set aside for Armitage or is it only for leakers that lie about the President like Wilson?

Today, Pat Buchanan, admitted Nazi-admirer, and right-wing louse next to none, asks (reasonably):

"why has the Democratic Congress, on taking power in January, not begun a broad investigation into how we got into this war?"

This is something I want to know too. And all the excuse-makers and apologists for the Democratic Party can line up and tell us how fine the Democrats in power are, and we still cannot get a meaningful investigation into the criminal actions of the Bush gang. Excuse me, but Democrats once again live up to their gutless billing.

Buchanan suggests an answer. I do not know if I buy it, but the Democrats sure act like they are either playing politics or have something themselves to hide. Here is what Buchanan says:

"This is the dog that didn't bark. And the reason the dog is silent suggests itself. The Congress, in voting President Bush the authority to take us to war against Iraq at a time and place of his own choosing, failed to do its duty by the Constitution. In October 2002, to get the issue off the table for the election and give themselves political cover against the Rovian charge they were tying the hands of the commander in chief in the War on Terror, a Democratic Senate -- Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Biden, Reid all assenting -- voted Bush the blank check for war that he cashed in five months later.

The dilemma a Democratic Congress faces in any investigation into whether we were lied into war is that Congress would be investigating why a Democratic Senate failed its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war. "

Is he onto something?

Bush can pardon for anything relating to a particular event or for any crimes prior to the date of the pardon.

For instance, Clinton gave one such pardon to Marc Rich who among other things was a middleman for Saddam Huseein's Oil for food bribery scheme to corrupt the UN. Clinton was approached by Marc Rich's wife. Who recomended that Clinton could be easily convinced?

Marc Rich's attorney made the recommendation to Mrs. Rich. The Attorney was I. Scooter Libby.