Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant

[Member2019]

Not Libby, but Armitage! And he has not been charged even once!

I challenge you to Sustantiate those statements please with some evidence.Namely that it was not administraion officals who gave people like Woodward the information that Valerie Plame was in the CIA or that her status was common knowledge prior to it being revealed by those officials.And also that quote "Anyone who did originally leak that (which wasn't the White House) were not guilty of any crime".

Well first off, the continued problem in this case -- including the statement you quoted on Wikipedia -- is that "Libby" was never the source of the alleged leak!

The W. administration official to merely confirm Plame was Richard Armitage, and that's been stated over and over (including in the Wikipedia article).
The problem with Wikipedia is that -- despite peer review -- it doesn't get all the facts straight, and some people just don't care to.
The focus on "Libby" is a result of people assuming he was convicted of the alleged leak, because -- again -- he was nailed perjury and obstruction of justice.

With Armitage's public and open admission, there has been no criminal charges filed at all against him!
Why? Because there was no crime committed!
There is only the civil suit filed by the Wilson's, and no offense, with Wilson's political mouth (which pre-dates a lot of this), he's going to have trouble.
Especially with the fact that several reporters knew his wife was a covert agent prior to Armitage's "confirmation" which Novak made public.
Wilson had been a central, news-tracked figure for some time because of his broad political statements prior to going to Africa.

Many people in the press have covered this. I will get you sources shortly.

Now despite my being wrong twice, and your being mistaken several times as well, this is still 100% political non-sense -- on all fronts -- from Wilson to the W. administration to Congress and their use of the Grand Jury.
It's a tit-for-tat back at W. for what they did to Clinton -- got him on no crime but perjury, obstruction of justice, etc... in the merely questioning of the matter, not the matter itself!

Yes, the CIA and W.'s own DOJ started the investigation.
But that was the same during the Clinton administration on Whitewater and other things.
What happened is that it rolled into a huge political storm where the facts and any actual "crime" was utterly removed!
That's why it's 100% political.

Because even people like yourself, let alone your quoted Wikipedia article, continue to name Libby as the alleged "leak" just because he was found guilty of perjury and other, non-related charges to the case -- just the investigation of it!

 

[Friday on my mind]

Re: Not Libby, but Armitage! And he has not been charged even once!

Now despite my being wrong twice, and your being mistaken several times as well, this is still 100% political non-sense -- on all fronts -- from Wilson to the W. administration to Congress and their use of the Grand Jury.
It's a tit-for-tat back at W. for what they did to Clinton -- got him on no crime but perjury, obstruction of justice, etc... in the merely questioning of the matter, not the matter itself!


Well let me just say that while I would never claim to not make mistakes I would say that If you think I have stated facts that are demonstrably in-accurate I would like to see them.Since you contend now that wikapedia is not to be trusted I will not bother to post but say to anyone that If you trust wikepedia just go there type in the pertinent names
1.Bob Woodward
2.Robert Novak
2.Judith Miller
4..Plame scandle,Armitage,Libby etc.
You will see that the facts are that Richard Armitage told Bob Woodward that Joe Wilson's wife was in the CIA,it was not confirming anything Wood ward already knew and even then he only knew her as Wilson's wife not Valerie Plame.Woodward never revealed any of it not even to the paper he worked for(The Washinton Post).It was Robert Novak who revealed it and his testimony to the Grand Jury was that he got it from Armitage and also from Karl Rove.Scooter Libby ****** it to Judith Miller of the NY times but she never published it.There is zero evidence these people and others knew anything about or who she even was prior to being ****** to.
On the issue of a crime being commited what Patrick Fitzgerald said was that because of being lied to by Scooter Libby he was hindered in getting to the facts.Here is a paragraph from the transcript of Press conference Fitzgerald gave announcing Libby indictment with full link for those interested to follow:


From News Conference
So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act.

FITZGERALD: I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.

That actually feeds into the other question. When you decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime, you want to know as many facts as possible. You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts.

Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.

We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he ******** that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight.

And our commitment on the other end is to use our judgment as to what we prosecute.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Those are the facts she was A CIA agent who was outed period!!!!!!!!!!!!!