Perjury

[dr_mabeuse]

Getting someone under oath and then asking them questions irrelevant to the charge under investigation is simply legal harrassment. It's a fishing expedition, pure and simple, and I doubt very much that there are any of us who couldn't be framed for perjury under such tactics. Prosecutors know this, and that's why they love Grand Juries. You can always nail someone for perjury or obstruction.

Does anyone even remember what Clinton was being investigated for when the Lewinsky things was dragged in? No. The whole thing was done as legal harrassment, part of the three years and 80 million dollar's worth of investigations that went on without turning up anything more than that crummy blowjob.

BTW, I see that the only way that Bush and Cheney would talk to the Grand Jury was if it were not under oath. I wonder why.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Getting someone under oath and then asking them questions irrelevant to the charge under investigation is simply legal harrassment. It's a fishing expedition, pure and simple, and I doubt very much that there are any of us who couldn't be framed for perjury under such tactics. Prosecutors know this, and that's why they love Grand Juries. You can always nail someone for perjury or obstruction.

Does anyone even remember what Clinton was being investigated for when the Lewinsky things was dragged in? No. The whole thing was done as legal harrassment, part of the three years and 80 million dollar's worth of investigations that went on without turning up anything more than that crummy blowjob.

BTW, I see that the only way that Bush and Cheney would talk to the Grand Jury was if it were not under oath. I wonder why.

If you have ever watched any of the preceedings against mob bosses, you will realize the framers recognized this tactic. You have but to plead the fifth. Not too long ago, a case came up where amn simply pleaded the fifth to every question. When prosecutors argued he couldn't do that, his lawyer pointed out ignorance was no excuse. that being the case, and it also being true no man can know ever law aperson could legitimately plead the fifth to any question. The fellow on trial, a Truck driver, won that point and without being able to make him say anything they could further use, the case against him collapsed.

I'm not a lawyer, but even I know you can avoid being set up like that by liberally using your fith amendment guarentee. And Bill Clinton knew it too. The thing is, legally, taking the fith can never be construed as admision of guilt. Perceptually, the public at large isn't so bound and Bill knew that too. He prefered to lie and perjur himself, to taking a PR hit.

And none of that changtes the fact his oath isn't worth shit. And wehre I come from, that makes him not worth shit.

If Liddy perjured himself, I hope he gets a long stretch in prison like G. Gordon did. If Any of those above him did the same, I hope they enjoy the accomdations at Levanworth just as throughly. I don't care about their politics. Liberal or conservative, a man who lies under oath is trash. I hope he gets the full comeuppance for it.

 

[thebullet]

To me there are some mitigating circumstatnces. Was Libby covering his own ass or someone higher's ass?

I do remember at the time of the event I was totally outraged. Regardless of the color of the administration, this particular sin - the outing of a covert CIA agent and all that implies - is truly dispicable and probably treasonous.

Will it ever be possible to get to the root of that particular crime? Unless several key people talk, probably not. So for now, Libby is the designated fall guy. Fiztgerald and the Grand Jury caught him in several bold faced lies. But WTF? How could Libby think he could get away with those lies, knowing that his own notes contradicted his words?

I just don't get it.

The prime moral seems to me that the corrupting influence of supreme power makes people believe they are bullet proof (no pun intended).

Perhaps it is time for us to amend the Constitution again - this time limiting a President to only one term. Can anyone remember a second Presidential term in their lifetime that didn't wallow in corruption and/or just plain incompetence? I can't quite remember Ike's 2nd term, but we certainly have to go back that far.

 

[Boxlicker101]

To me there are some mitigating circumstatnces. Was Libby covering his own ass or someone higher's ass?

I do remember at the time of the event I was totally outraged. Regardless of the color of the administration, this particular sin - the outing of a covert CIA agent and all that implies - is truly dispicable and probably treasonous.

Will it ever be possible to get to the root of that particular crime? Unless several key people talk, probably not. So for now, Libby is the designated fall guy. Fiztgerald and the Grand Jury caught him in several bold faced lies. But WTF? How could Libby think he could get away with those lies, knowing that his own notes contradicted his words?

I just don't get it.

The prime moral seems to me that the corrupting influence of supreme power makes people believe they are bullet proof (no pun intended).

Perhaps it is time for us to amend the Constitution again - this time limiting a President to only one term. Can anyone remember a second Presidential term in their lifetime that didn't wallow in corruption and/or just plain incompetence? I can't quite remember Ike's 2nd term, but we certainly have to go back that far.

There's no probably about it. Outing a covert agent IS treason.

 

[R. Richard]

I do remember at the time of the event I was totally outraged. Regardless of the color of the administration, this particular sin - the outing of a covert CIA agent and all that implies - is truly dispicable and probably treasonous.

There was NO outing of a covert CIA agent. The agent who was supposedly "outed" had not been a covert agent for nine years. The law involved sets five years as the time interval druing which a former covert CIA agent is protected.

By the way, giving credence to revealed classified information is a crime. Everyone who mentioned the name of the "outed" CIA agent was guilty of a crime and should be immediately stripped of their government security clearance. [This last is not my opinion, I was an engineer working on government defense projects and I know the laws involved. Even if the information revealed turns out to not be classified, giving credence to said information is a severe violation of government security rules.]

 

[thebullet]

Sorry, RR, but as far as I can glean, your information is incorrect. Valery Plame (who went to high school just up the street from where I live) was still undercover at the time of her outing. She was a non-official cover officer, which meant she traveled without a diplomatic passport. She and her cover company were both outed by the current administration. Now they are lying by saying she was nothing but a desk jockey.

Please, RR, you must know more than to believe any of the spin that comes out of the white house or is printed on neocon blogs or is reported by Fox News. Dig a little deeper.

 

[R. Richard]

Sorry, RR, but as far as I can glean, your information is incorrect. Valery Plame (who went to high school just up the street from where I live) was still undercover at the time of her outing. She was a non-official cover officer, which meant she traveled without a diplomatic passport. She and her cover company were both outed by the current administration. Now they are lying by saying she was nothing but a desk jockey.

Please, RR, you must know more than to believe any of the spin that comes out of the white house or is printed on neocon blogs or is reported by Fox News. Dig a little deeper.

==========================================================
Is this deep enough?

Patrick Fitzgerald Retreats From Plame 'Covert' Claim

Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald dropped a mini-bombshell Friday afternoon while he was explaining his indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby to the press.

It turns out that the central premise of his investigation - that Valerie Plame Wilson enjoyed protected "covert" status at the CIA - may not be true.

"Let me say two things," Fitzgerald told reporters. "I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."

Fitzgerald did insist that Mrs. Wilson's "association with the CIA was classified," which would make leaking her occupation a crime. But he declined to bring any charges to that effect, casting even more doubt on the claim that her CIA job was a closely guarded secret.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Speaking as someone with a family member working for one of those federal alphabet agencies, I can tell you how much trouble they have to go through to keep that quiet. The secrecy is for their personal safety as much as for job effectiveness.

I am incensed that this administration would leak such information, and even more so that they're trying to cover it up during an investigation. In my mind, there is no doubt what these guys were doing. They leaked to the press to discredit Wilson who was discrediting the administration while they were trying to make a case for going to war. I don't doubt this is what happened.

If you obstruct an investigation by lying and your lies prevent the truth from being revealed, even if you did nothing else that was illegal, you should be punished fully. People aren't just going to volunteer damning information about their bosses or their part in things unless they are compelled by perjury laws to take their oaths seriously.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Speaking as someone with a family member working for one of those federal alphabet agencies, I can tell you how much trouble they have to go through to keep that quiet. The secrecy is for their personal safety as much as for job effectiveness.

I am incensed that this administration would leak such information, and even more so that they're trying to cover it up during an investigation. In my mind, there is no doubt what these guys were doing. They leaked to the press to discredit Wilson who was discrediting the administration while they were trying to make a case for going to war. I don't doubt this is what happened.

If you obstruct an investigation by lying and your lies prevent the truth from being revealed, even if you did nothing else that was illegal, you should be punished fully. People aren't just going to volunteer damning information about their bosses or their part in things unless they are compelled by perjury laws to take their oaths seriously.

One thing I can't understand is about Nowack. If Rove or Libby or Cheney passed the info on to him, it was still not a problem. Once he blabbed it to the world, then she and her contacts and associates were compromised. Why don't they go after Nowack? He was the one who actually did the damage.

 

[R. Richard]

One thing I can't understand is about Nowack. If Rove or Libby or Cheney passed the info on to him, it was still not a problem. Once he blabbed it to the world, then she and her contacts and associates were compromised. Why don't they go after Nowack? He was the one who actually did the damage.

A key point! The only ones who "outed" any CIA operative were newspaper [magazine?] reporters. If there were real concern about "outing" a CIA operative, the prosecutor had only to produce the published columns to prosecute the guilty parties.

As Dr. M has pointed out, the entire thing is basically a political witch hunt. Fitzgerald early on realized that he had no case for the alleged "outing" of a CIA operative. Thus, he got permission to expand the scope of his investigation. He began to question people about things that happened several years back. Almost anyone will mis-remember minor things that happened several years ago. Thus, indictments for perjury were pretty much assured.

 

[LadyJeanne]

A key point! The only ones who "outed" any CIA operative were newspaper [magazine?] reporters. If there were real concern about "outing" a CIA operative, the prosecutor had only to produce the published columns to prosecute the guilty parties.

As Dr. M has pointed out, the entire thing is basically a political witch hunt. Fitzgerald early on realized that he had no case for the alleged "outing" of a CIA operative. Thus, he got permission to expand the scope of his investigation. He began to question people about things that happened several years back. Almost anyone will mis-remember minor things that happened several years ago. Thus, indictments for perjury were pretty much assured.

In contracts, such as between a consulting firm and a client sharing access to confidential information, there is a standard clause about third parties who obtain confidential information without knowing that the information is confidential are not obligated to keep it confidential. So if Novak was told that Wilson was sent to Niger because his wife, who works for the CIA, suggested that he go because he had been an ambassador to that country, and Novack was not told that Plame's identity was confidential, he is not under obligation to keep that confidential.

But that's the rule with contract and companies. I don't know if it works the same way with treason.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In contracts, such as between a consulting firm and a client sharing access to confidential information, there is a standard clause about third parties who obtain confidential information without knowing that the information is confidential are not obligated to keep it confidential. So if Novak was told that Wilson was sent to Niger because his wife, who works for the CIA, suggested that he go because he had been an ambassador to that country, and Novack was not told that Plame's identity was confidential, he is not under obligation to keep that confidential.

But that's the rule with contract and companies. I don't know if it works the same way with treason.

The reporters are not stupid. They know full well that the identity of a covert agent is confidential. If it weren't, they wouldn't have reported it.

 

[BlackSnake]

I think justice can only be server if the law is enforced and implemented to its fullest extent. In this we can only determine which changes need to be made in the laws.

If Joe Blow "the rag man" can be charged, then so show Clinton.

Equal under the law is what I say, and change the laws when they are flawed.

 

[Huckleman2000]

A key point! The only ones who "outed" any CIA operative were newspaper [magazine?] reporters. If there were real concern about "outing" a CIA operative, the prosecutor had only to produce the published columns to prosecute the guilty parties.

As Dr. M has pointed out, the entire thing is basically a political witch hunt. Fitzgerald early on realized that he had no case for the alleged "outing" of a CIA operative. Thus, he got permission to expand the scope of his investigation. He began to question people about things that happened several years back. Almost anyone will mis-remember minor things that happened several years ago. Thus, indictments for perjury were pretty much assured.

Well, there's something about a free press in the First Amendment.

Novak is a total dick, but if Rove and Libby were leaking to reporters on deep background, that's authorization to use the information in a story.

And Libby's statements to the FBI were made when the investigation first got underway, so it's not as though he was trying to remember things several years ago. Plus, his story contradicted his own notes. Doestn' sound like anything was "mis-remembered" to me.

Have another glass of Kool-Aid.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, there's something about a free press in the First Amendment.

Novak is a total dick, but if Rove and Libby were leaking to reporters on deep background, that's authorization to use the information in a story.

And Libby's statements to the FBI were made when the investigation first got underway, so it's not as though he was trying to remember things several years ago. Plus, his story contradicted his own notes. Doestn' sound like anything was "mis-remembered" to me.

Have another glass of Kool-Aid.

I'm aware that the newspaper probably did not break any law. There is no "Official Secrets Act" in the US, which is probably a good thing, in the long run. Nevertheless, what Nowack did was reprehensible. He compromised security and endangered the operator and her contacts just because he could do so without breaking any law. I don't suppose the government can take any measures against his employer, can they?

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm aware that the newspaper probably did not break any law. There is no "Official Secrets Act" in the US, which is probably a good thing, in the long run. Nevertheless, what Nowack did was reprehensible. He compromised security and endangered the operator and her contacts just because he could do so without breaking any law. I don't suppose the government can take any measures against his employer, can they?

I agree that what Novak did was reprehensible. It was also, apparently, exactly what the White House wanted him to do. They peddled the same information to other reporters, who chose not to use it, at least until Novak did.

If you're trying to keep some information classified, you don't go blabbing to reporters about it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I agree that what Novak did was reprehensible. It was also, apparently, exactly what the White House wanted him to do. They peddled the same information to other reporters, who chose not to use it, at least until Novak did.

If you're trying to keep some information classified, you don't go blabbing to reporters about it.

Obviously, somebody wanted her outed and talked to enough reporters that one of them would do the dirty work. I know that no legal action can be taken but the press corps needs certain credentials to operate. Since Novak works for the Chicago Sun Times, maybe they can cancel their credentials. I don't know what, if anything, the rest of the press corps would do about that.

 

[R. Richard]

Well, there's something about a free press in the First Amendment.

Novak is a total dick, but if Rove and Libby were leaking to reporters on deep background, that's authorization to use the information in a story.

And Libby's statements to the FBI were made when the investigation first got underway, so it's not as though he was trying to remember things several years ago. Plus, his story contradicted his own notes. Doestn' sound like anything was "mis-remembered" to me.

Have another glass of Kool-Aid.

A free press does not give anyone the right to publish confidential information. In addition, there is a law expressly prohibiting the "outing" of undercover CIA agents.

I don't know where you got your information about Libby.

I did undergo accusations of mishandling government security documents some years back. The accusations cost me my job and would have cost me my government security clearance except that the video tape surveillance of the classified area showed that my accuser did the mishandling, not me. I tend to have a sort of hot button on the issue of unproved charges. However, it is nothing like the hot button my ex-employer has.

 

[Huckleman2000]

A free press does not give anyone the right to publish confidential information. In addition, there is a law expressly prohibiting the "outing" of undercover CIA agents.

I don't know where you got your information about Libby.

The information that Libby's false statements were made to the FBI at the beginning of the investigation is contained in the indictment. He spoke to themon or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel.

As to your Nixonian view of the rights of a free press, the Supreme Court did not agree in the Pentagon Papers case.

Regardless, as I stated before, the White House was apparently giving this information to reporters on multiple separate occasions. It's safe to assume that they expected the information to be published. Rove and LIbby both gave instruction as to how the information should be sourced, as in "deep background", "a former capitol hill staffer", etc.

 

[elsol]

They're reporters.

If they didn't break the law getting the information (broke into a government building and stole it), it's their job.

The problem isn't that a reporter reported it... it's that someone opened their mouth when it should have stayed shut.

I don't want reporters playing cover-up games.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Huckleman2000]

They're reporters.

If they didn't break the law getting the information (broke into a government building and stole it), it's their job.

The problem isn't that a reporter reported it... it's that someone opened their mouth when it should have stayed shut.

I don't want reporters playing cover-up games.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Thanks, El Sol for cutting to the chase

 

[Boxlicker101]

They're reporters.

If they didn't break the law getting the information (broke into a government building and stole it), it's their job.

The problem isn't that a reporter reported it... it's that someone opened their mouth when it should have stayed shut.

I don't want reporters playing cover-up games.

Sincerely,
ElSol

I don't know if Novak broke any law in disclosing the info or not. You are right, though, that he didn't break any law in getting it. It was apparently the government officials who broke the law. I believe that releasing the info was an act of treason and it was committed by all concerned, but it may not have been prosecutable. Those who did not disclose the info were not covering up any wrongdoing; they were refraining from committing treasonous acts.

I'm not old enough to remember WW2 but I have read about it. From time to time, ships carrying thousands of American soldiers would embark from East Coast ports on their way to Europe. The time and place of the departures was known to many persons but those persons did not make the details public knowledge. If some newspaper columnist were to have printed the info, the Axis, who had submarines operating in the Atlantic, would have made every effort to sink the ships and kill the soldiers, inflicting great losses on the US and the Allies, and severely damaging American morale. Therefore, nobody released the details.

This case is something like that would have been, although not as serious. By printing the identity of the covert CIA operative, Novak put her and her contacts and associates at risk. Al Qaida and others inimical to the US would have been very happy to use information like that against the US. Novak can claim "Freedom of the press" and he may be right, but it was still a reprehensible thing for him to do.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Freedom of speech, or religion, of the press, et al. Where does the idea come in that these freedoms are without bound? Your freedom of speech is bounded by laws that define and place penalties upon slander. Likewise you aren't free to yell Fire! in a crowded theatre. You can be a full blooded descendant of the myans. You can subscribe wholly to their religious system. You can't practice it, because it involves blood sacrifice. The press is counded by laws providing penalties for lible.

Geraldo was axed for trying to pass tactical information on to viewrs from thebattlefield. Why? Because he was risking the safety of the unit he was attached to. When you ar in possession of information, the release of which could very well get someone killed, you should at the very least be absolutely sure the public has a need to know that information. No one back in the U.S. had a need to know the tactical situation of the unit Rivera was with. No one had a need to know Mrs. Plame was working for the CIA.

The information should not have been leaked to the press. The press, once in possession of it, probably shouldn't have reported it. It was not, in any way pertinent and could have had leathal consequences for someone.

At the end of the day, the public at large didn't need the information. The man who reported it is guilty of a serious lapse in judgement. The man or men who leaked it are guilty of something, which could range from a simple lapse in their own judgement to attempted murder and treason. And Liddy is guilty of perjury.

Somewhere along the line, everyone involved is going to face some scrutiny. It is to be hoped each will get punishment in accordance with their culpability. In Liddy's case, the fact that he is willing to lie under oathtends to indicate he is cognizant enough of his own role and the crminality of it to feel he has a better chance of escaping punishment by lying. From what I understand, and I admit I haven't followed this closely, his lies were obvious and his assertions contravened by his own notes which had already been subpeoned. His testimony does beg the question of him being arrogant enough to think he wouldn't get challenged or is he taking one for the team?

In any case, he lied under oath and in doing so, he gave the grnd jury grounds to contiune the investigation where perhaps just being honest when it suited and plaeding the fifth when it didn't might have left them without sufficeint grounds to indict anyone.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Freedom of speech, or religion, of the press, et al. Where does the idea come in that these freedoms are without bound? Your freedom of speech is bounded by laws that define and place penalties upon slander. Likewise you aren't free to yell Fire! in a crowded theatre. You can be a full blooded descendant of the myans. You can subscribe wholly to their religious system. You can't practice it, because it involves blood sacrifice. The press is counded by laws providing penalties for lible.

Geraldo was axed for trying to pass tactical information on to viewrs from thebattlefield. Why? Because he was risking the safety of the unit he was attached to. When you ar in possession of information, the release of which could very well get someone killed, you should at the very least be absolutely sure the public has a need to know that information. No one back in the U.S. had a need to know the tactical situation of the unit Rivera was with. No one had a need to know Mrs. Plame was working for the CIA.

The information should not have been leaked to the press. The press, once in possession of it, probably shouldn't have reported it. It was not, in any way pertinent and could have had leathal consequences for someone.

At the end of the day, the public at large didn't need the information. The man who reported it is guilty of a serious lapse in judgement. The man or men who leaked it are guilty of something, which could range from a simple lapse in their own judgement to attempted murder and treason. And Liddy is guilty of perjury.

Somewhere along the line, everyone involved is going to face some scrutiny. It is to be hoped each will get punishment in accordance with their culpability. In Liddy's case, the fact that he is willing to lie under oathtends to indicate he is cognizant enough of his own role and the crminality of it to feel he has a better chance of escaping punishment by lying. From what I understand, and I admit I haven't followed this closely, his lies were obvious and his assertions contravened by his own notes which had already been subpeoned. His testimony does beg the question of him being arrogant enough to think he wouldn't get challenged or is he taking one for the team?

In any case, he lied under oath and in doing so, he gave the grnd jury grounds to contiune the investigation where perhaps just being honest when it suited and plaeding the fifth when it didn't might have left them without sufficeint grounds to indict anyone.

Personally, I think he was just taking one for the team. Libby has to know he is caughrt dead to rights and might as well take all the blame, or as much as he can.

 

[elsol]

Freedom of speech, or religion, of the press, et al. Where does the idea come in that these freedoms are without bound? Your freedom of speech is bounded by laws that define and place penalties upon slander. Likewise you aren't free to yell Fire! in a crowded theatre. You can be a full blooded descendant of the myans. You can subscribe wholly to their religious system. You can't practice it, because it involves blood sacrifice. The press is counded by laws providing penalties for lible.

The information should not have been leaked to the press. The press, once in possession of it, probably shouldn't have reported it. It was not, in any way pertinent and could have had leathal consequences for someone.

Once the press had the information they are DUTY-BOUND to report it.

Someone in the administration is talking; prove that the ONLY person they're talking to is 1 reporter.

This ALSO applies to combat deployments; if someone is leaking them to the press then you HAVE TO play the game as if the enemy is also getting the information.

The information should not have been leaked to the press... it was. The reporter cannot and should not play 'games' at that point. They have to do their job and report it.

If they don't report it... someone in the field could be caught with their pants down because I promise you nobody LEAKED to the generals and control officers that 'the secret has been comprimised'.

And no... they can't go 'talking' to administration, FBI or the generals. People have a habit of dismissing, not listening or otherwise covering shit up to protect their job.

Novack and crew just didn't realize what the REAL story was.

That's good... let them report the truth and let other people get the information they need to pursue the conclusions that come from that truth.

Sincerely,
ElSol