[i]Armitage says he told Novak because it was “just an offhand question.” “I didn’t put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had,” he says.
Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn’t mean that every sentence in the document is classified.
“I had never seen a covered agent’s name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government,” he says.
He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson’s wife as such, or possibly as “Mrs. Wilson.” He never referred to her as Valerie Plame, he adds.
“I didn’t know the woman’s name was Plame. I didn’t know she was an operative,” he says. [/i][/quote]
Once again…Armitage did not have the authority to declassify Plame’s status.
Rove, Libby and crew did not know where the information came from.
Confirming the validity of leaked but still classified information without clearance is illegle.
You have to be without a shadow of a doubt the worst lawyer in the history of the planet period!
Once again…Armitage did not have the authority to declassify Plame’s status.
Rove, Libby and crew did not know where the information came from.
Confirming the validity of leaked but still classified information without clearance is illegle.
You have to be without a shadow of a doubt the worst lawyer in the history of the planet period![/quote]
I hate to have to point it out to you yet again, but the applicable laws have a knowledge qualification – care to point to how you will establish any knowledge on the part of either Rove or Libby as to any status of Valerie Plame?
Really, care to point to anything establishing that anyone named anywhere in this thread had any knowledge of any classified status related to Valerie Plame’s name?
Actually, marm, I thought I would add a little explanation of how a law works generally, with its various elements. You’re such an obvious legal expert you probably don’t need this, but just for anyone else out there who fancies he has legal insights and ends up typing things that make him sound amazingly ignorant…
When a law has an element that requires a certain mindset (a mens rea, such as intent or knowledge, then it is impossible to violate that law unless you have the satisfied the requisite mens rea.
For instance, the four elements required for assault under the common law were:
The apparent, present ability to carry out;
An unlawful attempt;
To commit a violent injury;
Upon another.
To satisfy the attempt element under common law, a person must intend
1. To do the act (conduct)
2. To accomplish the result
3. Under the same circumstances (must know the circumstance of target offense).
Thus, you cannot have an accidental assault under that common law definition, because you would not satisfy the mens rea element of the crime’s definition.
[Note: modern statutes tend to have multiple definitions, some of which can be “reckless,” which do not require intent, but that is beside the point of the example.]
The statutes in question here have a knowledge requirement. The knowledge requirement attaches not only to the act, as in knowing the likely results of confirming information, but also to the fact of whether the information is in fact classified.
Thus, without that knowledge, it is impossible to violate the law.
I hope this might help those other people who seem to not understand the whole mens rea concept…
Why did Libby and Rove try to cover their tracks if they had done nothing wrong?
They knew they F’ed up and Rove burned Libby on this.[/quote]
FYI, a person’s opinion that he has done something wrong, in whatever context (political, moral, etc.) does not equate to a fact that the person has acted illegally.
For example, as I cited previously, Martha Stewart didn’t engage in any insider trading, but she was afraid she might have. She then lied to an investigator about legal conduct, and was convicted of interfering with a police investigation for giving false information to an officer.
Or, for example, let’s say Zeb went to Las Vegas and went on a gambling binge and lost $100. The fact he felt he did something wrong would not lead to a conclusion he had done anything illegal.
With Libby and Rove, they may have been worried about political fallout, or they may have been uncertain as to whether they acted illegally (I highly doubt either was familiar with the appropriate legislation protecting the identities of undercover operatives, particularly given that I don’t think they knew Plame had any undercover status (whether she had status covered by the statute remains an open question)).
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
If the strategy was to get through the election then the strategy worked.
Libby has to ask himself…what now?
Maybe he can co-host Liddy’s AM radio show once he gets pardoned.[/quote]
Maybe he will get pardoned when GW is on his way out – or, rather, granted immunity via a pardon, as the prosecution would almost certainly be ongoing at that point (trials take forever). I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
FYI, a person’s opinion that he has done something wrong, in whatever context (political, moral, etc.) does not equate to a fact that the person has acted illegally.[/quote]
Ignorance is not a valid defense in a court of law.
i.e. I am sorry officer I did not know I was driving 45 in a 25 zone.
No doubt about it.
They signed an oath but they did not undertand what they signed?
You can not be OK with that. This will set the stage for allowing future WH staff an excuse. The only way you are fine with this is if you actually believe that the GOP will be in the WH for the rest of your life…do you really believe that the GOP will never lose a presidential election?
The only way you can believe that is if you believe the CIA is lying.
Why would the CIA lie about Plame? Revenge?
Revenge would be a wacky consiracy theory…right?
It is obvious that you believe at the very least that Libby and Rove tried to decieve the FBI agents that questioned them so that they could get through the election.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
FYI, a person’s opinion that he has done something wrong, in whatever context (political, moral, etc.) does not equate to a fact that the person has acted illegally.
Ignorance is not a valid defense in a court of law.
i.e. I am sorry officer I did not know I was driving 45 in a 25 zone.[/quote]
Geez. You have it exactly backwards. “Ignorance of the law” applies when someone broke a law but claims they didn’t know they broke a law. It doesn’t - it can’t - apply to someone who thought they broke a law but didn’t. That is the exact opposite scenario.
You won’t be hauled into a court of law if you didn’t break a law, smart guy.
Or is it “ignorance of the lack of law is no excuse”…?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
FYI, a person’s opinion that he has done something wrong, in whatever context (political, moral, etc.) does not equate to a fact that the person has acted illegally.
Ignorance is not a valid defense in a court of law.
i.e. I am sorry officer I did not know I was driving 45 in a 25 zone.
Geez. You have it exactly backwards. “Ignorance of the law” applies when someone broke a law but claims they didn’t know they broke a law. It doesn’t - it can’t - apply to someone who thought they broke a law but didn’t. That is the exact opposite scenario.
You won’t be hauled into a court of law if you didn’t break a law, smart guy.
Or is it “ignorance of the lack of law is no excuse”…?[/quote]
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
FYI, a person’s opinion that he has done something wrong, in whatever context (political, moral, etc.) does not equate to a fact that the person has acted illegally.
Marmadogg wrote:
Ignorance is not a valid defense in a court of law.
i.e. I am sorry officer I did not know I was driving 45 in a 25 zone.[/quote]
Yes it is, when there is a knowledge standard required as one of the elements of a crime.
Your example is a strict liability crime, which has no mens rea requirement.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
With Libby and Rove, they may have been worried about political fallout,
Marmadogg wrote:
No doubt about it.
BostonBarrister wrote:
or they may have been uncertain as to whether they acted illegally (I highly doubt either was familiar with the appropriate legislation protecting the identities of undercover operatives, particularly given that I don’t think they knew Plame had any undercover status
Marmadogg wrote:
They signed an oath but they did not undertand what they signed?[/quote]
They didn’t need to understand the oath, though I’m sure they did. What they needed to understand was whether the information was actually classified.
BTW, I believe the oath would be a contractual matter, not a criminal one, for what it’s worth.
[quote]
marmadogg wrote:
You can not be OK with that. This will set the stage for allowing future WH staff an excuse. The only way you are fine with this is if you actually believe that the GOP will be in the WH for the rest of your life…do you really believe that the GOP will never lose a presidential election?[/quote]
Of course the GOP will lose an election. But if they want to make this a strict liability offense they need to rewrite the law, not apply the current law incorrectly.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
(whether she had status covered by the statute remains an open question)).
marmadogg wrote:
The only way you can believe that is if you believe the CIA is lying.[/quote]
False dichotomy. They just requested an investigation, which as I understand it meant an investigation into whether national security was damaged by an event (they didn’t even need to take a position on that issue) – I didn’t think it required an them to take a position on whether Plame’s status was statutorily protected.
[quote]marmadogg wrote:
Why would the CIA lie about Plame? Revenge?
Revenge would be a wacky consiracy theory…right?[/quote]
It would be a wacky conspiracy theory. But not too wacky to have one person in a position of authority within the CIA initiate a process for the purpose of bad publicity. Who leaked that info on the foreign prisons again?
Actually, that’s not quite it. I believe Rove and Libby probably thought there was a chance they had done something illegal, and were desperate to avoid political fallout. I think they tried to answer prosecutorial questions as vaguely as possible, and most likely misremembered some details of their conversations and contradicted themselves – not too hard to do when you’re trying to recall details months or years later.
What I think they were guilty of doing is playing hardball politics, and probably of not doing what a lawyer would call “due diligence” in looking into Valerie Plame thoroughly before confirming her info with reporters. They saw an opportunity when they heard her name floating around and thought they could take it quickly – they didn’t set up the interviews with the reporters, or bring up Plame. They were reacting to an opportunity, and they didn’t check it out. That’s my take anyway.
BTW, FYI, as a general matter you can’t indict the President for exercising a Constitutional power. He could be impeached for improper use by Congress, but he’d be on his way out and they can’t impeach someone who’s not in office.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I believe Rove and Libby probably thought there was a chance they had done something illegal, and were desperate to avoid political fallout. I think they tried to answer prosecutorial questions as vaguely as possible, and most likely misremembered some details of their conversations and contradicted themselves – not too hard to do when you’re trying to recall details months or years later.
What I think they were guilty of doing is playing hardball politics, and probably of not doing what a lawyer would call “due diligence” in looking into Valerie Plame thoroughly before confirming her info with reporters. They saw an opportunity when they heard her name floating around and thought they could take it quickly – they didn’t set up the interviews with the reporters, or bring up Plame. They were reacting to an opportunity, and they didn’t check it out. That’s my take anyway.[/quote]
I am beyond amazed you have come to a conclusion that I can accept.
The real test will be when a Democrat does the same thing. The loophole has been established and someone would have to be a fool to get caught moving forward.
[quote]
BTW, FYI, as a general matter you can’t indict the President for exercising a Constitutional power. He could be impeached for improper use by Congress, but he’d be on his way out and they can’t impeach someone who’s not in office.[/quote]
I understand that…Clinton and H.W. pardoned people that should not have been pardon and it damaged what little credibility they each had left at the time.
Pardoning Libby is indictable in the court of public opinion.
With Libby and Rove, they may have been worried about political fallout, or they may have been uncertain as to whether they acted illegally (I highly doubt either was familiar with the appropriate legislation protecting the identities of undercover operatives, particularly given that I don’t think they knew Plame had any undercover status (whether she had status covered by the statute remains an open question)).
[/quote]
It’s not really an open question, since she was undercover as a manager of the JTF on Iraq. Fitgerald said that the veep knew this. It’s unlikely given Dick’s and Libby’s constant visits to the CIA that they didn’t know that assets related to that JTF weren’t undercover, especially since she was investigating WMD claims.
However, did you read it? It would seem your case isn’t as open and shut as you think it is, given the article says the IAEA still stands by the letter, which you say it does not.
[/quote]
Well it’s not me saying it: The IAEA said it was a forgery, again in links to the independent and time magazine articles. So the author is contradicted by the facts here (and elsewhere).
yes, that’s his opinion based on his own inaccuracies and his belief in the butler report.
“again this letter is forged. This is reconfirmed by the IAEA in 2004:
…we have received information from a number of member states regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger. However, we have learned nothing which would cause us to change the conclusion we reported to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003 with regards to the documents assessed to be forgeries and have not received any information that would appear to be based on anything other than those documents.[6]” http://www.lynnejones.org.uk/uranium.htm#iaea
The 1999 trip (the other piece of evidence) was Zahawi’s actual trip to niger. Nobody has backed away from this, because he actually went, the question is the 2000 (seeking uranium) letter a fake. It is. see above.
The IAEA interviewed Zahawi himself feb 10, 2003. plus another contradicition, here:
The IAEA had a copy which they will not pass on to anyone because the French who provided it told them not to"
vs.
“a deal between the French and the IAEA that Jacques Baute, the French head of the IAEA’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office would be the only one allowed to see the document in the French offices in the UN. It was Baute who quized Jafar on the Zahawi issue. It is of course possible that he didnt get to take a copy of the actual document away, just read it in the French offices in the UN and took notes of what it said.”
again in 2004 the IAEA said this:
“I can confirm to you that we have received information from a number of member states regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger. However, we have learned nothing which would cause us to change the conclusion we reported to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003 with regards to the documents assessed to be forgeries and have not received any information that would appear to be based on anything other than those documents.”
intelligence dossier based on forged documents— see multiple aboves.
The uranium mines are controlled by a french consortium for use in nuclear plants. They are tightly controlled. Remember Wilson’s findings? It would be impossible for them to shift output without it being noticed. Especially 500 tons, which would be 1/6 of the total annual production of the 2 uranium mines that are in niger and both controlled by the french (2 shipments of 25 tractor trailers through the desert…pretty hilarious)
[quote]
Those items of intelligence were confirmed by the letter, but would not go away even if it were a forgery, which Iraqi claims to the contrary certainly do not establish. This is why the Butler report and the British do not characterize their second source (the one independent of the Italian forgeries) as “document based.”
So, no, Wilson wasn’t right, the 16 words were right, and Wilson very well brought press attention to himself and the details of his trip by publishing an op-ed in the NYT talking about his trip and citing it as evidence for a claim that the President was lying in the SOTU.[/quote]
So you insist on going with the british and an obviously forged letter of something that would be impossible to accomplish? Despite every agency telling you are wrong and Wilson being totally right?