Some more “spin” – which, amazingly, backs up the most reasonable of the predictions:
It was Armitage.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some more “spin” – which, amazingly, backs up the most reasonable of the predictions:
It was Armitage.
The reason Libby and Rove were in Fitz’s cross hairs is they did not know about Armitage until after the trial began. Rove found out about Armitage before it was too late while Libby had already dug himself a grave. Libby will be pardoned in the end.
This would have been a non-issue if they have just come clean.
The attempted ‘cover up’ was worse part.
There has been some good to come out of this…wing nuts from either edge of the spectrum will not be so hasty to share secret information while believing they are immune to prosecution.
Armitage should be put before a firing line.
He is a F’ing traitor.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Some more “spin” – which, amazingly, backs up the most reasonable of the predictions:
It was Armitage.
Marmadogg wrote:
The reason Libby and Rove were in Fitz’s cross hairs is they did not know about Armitage until after the trial began. Rove found out about Armitage before it was too late while Libby had already dug himself a grave. Libby will be pardoned in the end.[/quote]
This may or may not be true - as usual, you provide your own unique facts for which one can’t find public back-up - but it would seem that both of Libby and Rove knew the Plame name was known generally to the journalists to whom they were speaking, as all reports show that both Rove and Libby “confirmed” the Plame name, not that they released it.
As for Armitage, the story linked says he was unaware of any classified status Plame may have had at the point he spoke about her – kind of hard to break out the “traitor” card without the mens rea of intent.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
As for Armitage, the story linked says he was unaware of any classified status Plame may have had at the point he spoke about her – kind of hard to break out the “traitor” card without the mens rea of intent.[/quote]
How convenient. Do you really think anyone is going to come out and admit that they purposely outed a known agent in a traitorous act of treason?
Quit being a lawyer sometimes and think like a human being again…
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
As for Armitage, the story linked says he was unaware of any classified status Plame may have had at the point he spoke about her – kind of hard to break out the “traitor” card without the mens rea of intent.
vroom wrote:
How convenient. Do you really think anyone is going to come out and admit that they purposely outed a known agent in a traitorous act of treason?
Quit being a lawyer sometimes and think like a human being again…[/quote]
Actually I’m just choosing to believe the “spin” of the article I linked, from Newsweek, from a journalist who is no friend of this administration, Michael Issikoff – did you read it?
BB habitually lawyers the truth, using reason and argument as a wino uses a lamppost for support, not illumination.
BB is no different than the left wingnuts and feminazis (to use a Limbaugh term) that defended Clinton’s womanizing and sexual harassment which is ironic in so many ways.
It is amusing that BB must defend everyone involved otherwise it weakens his argument for Libby and Rove.
The State Department was the loudest opponent to the White House yet BB thinks everyone is innocent because he does not like the Wilsons.
I don’t care for the Wilsons either but Brewster Jennings and Associates was under cover and so was Plame. Contrary to our want-to-be lawyer friend BB claims.
BB needs to stick to corporate law as he is WAY over his head on this one.
What a joke.
BB’s intellectually dishonesty knows no bounds.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
As for Armitage, the story linked says he was unaware of any classified status Plame may have had at the point he spoke about her – kind of hard to break out the “traitor” card without the mens rea of intent.
vroom wrote:
How convenient. Do you really think anyone is going to come out and admit that they purposely outed a known agent in a traitorous act of treason?
Quit being a lawyer sometimes and think like a human being again…
Actually I’m just choosing to believe the “spin” of the article I linked, from Newsweek, from a journalist who is no friend of this administration, Michael Issikoff – did you read it?
[/quote]
Issikoff is trying to keep his access to the WH. At the end of the day he is whore just like Woodward.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BB habitually lawyers the truth, using reason and argument as a wino uses a lamppost for support, not illumination.[/quote]
Apparently the wino is smarter than you are: I thought I had already explained to you that the light comes from the light bulb… You’d think that wouldn’t be a difficult concept, but you can continue to try to shine the post in the dark all you want: be my guest. I’m actually amused by the thought of you swinging around a giant post in the dark in New Jersey and wondering why you’re bumping into things…
Now on to your wonderful skills of argumentation.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BB is no different than the left wingnuts and feminazis (to use a Limbaugh term) that defended Clinton’s womanizing and sexual harassment which is ironic in so many ways.[/quote]
Really? How is it “no different”? Please, do “illuminate” us… hopefully it’s brighter than a post…
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
It is amusing that BB must defend everyone involved otherwise it weakens his argument for Libby and Rove.[/quote]
Amusing as in funny “Ha Ha” or funny “Ho Ho,” or funny because it’s baffling to you how people might actually be interested in what happened before meting out punishment and “traitor” accusations?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The State Department was the loudest opponent to the White House yet BB thinks everyone is innocent because he does not like the Wilsons.[/quote]
Exactly – the State Department was the loudest opponent to the White House. And the whole theory on which this has been premised thus far was that the White House released Plame’s name as some sort of revenge against that idiot Joe Wilson. And yet, turns out the name was released by the State Department, likely in the process of making fun of the CIA’s investigative techniques, as the CIA at that time was officially giving credence to the WMD idea.
Kind of pokes holes in the plausibility of the main theory now doesn’t it?
Of course, I forget your top-secret sources that give you information to which no one else is privy, which I’m sure validate your warped theories (and all of which has been wrong so far, I might add…).
As for innocent, I’m talking about breaking the law. You need intent to break the applicable laws in order to be guilty. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I don’t care for the Wilsons either but Brewster Jennings and Associates was under cover and so was Plame. Contrary to our want-to-be lawyer friend BB claims.[/quote]
Brewster Jennings wasn’t revealed by the original leaker – it was discovered subsequently. Thus it doesn’t come into play, my little want-to-be legal analyst…
While it may seem to you that something that is discovered because of the original leaked name should be punishable, that’s not how the law works. So sorry to be the one to have to break this to you…
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BB needs to stick to corporate law as he is WAY over his head on this one.
What a joke.
BB’s intellectually dishonesty knows no bounds.
[/quote]
Stick with degrading the integrity of the financial markets. Or maybe get out your secret Little Orphan Annie Ovaltine decoder ring and see what else your sources can tell you that will prove wrong. “Drink your Ovaltine!”
Some good speculation relating to the Armitage revelation:
Libby and Rove jumped at the suggestion that Plame sent Wilson without thinking about the consequences.
They both tried to cover their tracks because they did not know who originally leaked the information.
Had they come clean like the leaker this would not have been a story.
They both obviously thought they F’ed up or they would not have tried to throw the FBI off the trail.
It was for revenge or did you choose to ignore the inconvenient facts of the article you linked?
You are like the DH Padres manager.
No class.
Libby asked the State Department for the information and that is why the memo was crafted.
At the end of the day Libby is out of office and is a fool.
Armitage, Libby and Rove are traitors and so are you.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Libby and Rove jumped at the suggestion that Plame sent Wilson without thinking about the consequences.
They both tried to cover their tracks because they did not know who originally leaked the information.
Had they come clean like the leaker this would not have been a story.
They both obviously thought they F’ed up or they would not have tried to throw the FBI off the trail.[/quote]
All very interesting speculation – but that’s what it is: speculation.
I would not doubt that they didn’t know the source – I also wouldn’t doubt that when accusations were originally thrown around they were uncertain of their legal footing. That tends to happen when one is surprised by something – which would not square with the idea of a planned “revenge” scenario, especially by people like Rove and Libby.
This also doesn’t jibe with Armitage – he leaked the info.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
It was for revenge or did you choose to ignore the inconvenient facts of the article you linked?
[/quote]
What “inconvenient facts” would those be? The wishful thinking on the part of David Corn, Isikoff’s co-author?
Corn takes his speculation further than the pitiful little one-sentence “fact” he and Isikoff use to speculate about White House aides leaking Plame’s name – I wonder why they didn’t source that with any names? Besides those wishful-thinking asides at the end of the Newsweek piece, here’s Corn’s blog:
It’s all pretty pitiful – let’s see, Libby asked a lot of questions, thereby triggering a leak from Armitage. The causation is just a little weak. And this is from David Cor, who hates the administration. Why not blame the press for all their questions? Or, better yet, blame Joe Wilson for writing his op-ed and thrusting himself into the limelight…
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
You are like the DH Padres manager.
No class.[/quote]
Gee, that was funny Fat Albert. Do it again…
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Libby asked the State Department for the information and that is why the memo was crafted.
At the end of the day Libby is out of office and is a fool.
Armitage, Libby and Rove are traitors and so are you.[/quote]
This one doesn’t pass the smell test either – though that could just be your odor – you are from New Jersey after all…
Again, from Corn’s blog:
I steal this from Tom Maguire, who has been following this much more closely than I have:
EXCERPT:
I NEED SOME HELP HERE: David Corn tries to rationalize the notion that the Armitage leak reflects White House machinations. OK, it is a stretch, but I think he also advances his case by making stuff up:
[i]The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.
The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife.[/i]
Is Corn trying to tell us that there are two memos, the one requested by Libby and the famous INR memo( http://www.nysun.com/article/31062 ) (.pdf: http://www.nysun.com/pics/31062_1.php ) that circulated within State?
And what does Corn mean by “this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby”? What is the source for that? Per the indictment ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801086.html ), Libby was advised orally about the memo, but apparently did not get a copy:
6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
And although that was in the indictment, Libby disputed (p. 5 of 29: http://talkleft.com/libbyresp412.pdf ) that the conversation ocurred:
During his grand jury appearances, Mr. Libby testified that he did not recall any conversations with Mr. Grossman about Mr. Wilson?s wife. The defense is absolutely entitled to investigate whether the conversation alleged by Mr. Grossman actually occurred and to test Mr. Grossman?s memory and credibility about what he did or did not say to Mr. Libby at trial. Like every fact alleged in the indictment, the facts surrounding Mr. Grossman?s alleged conversation with Mr. Libby have not yet been established ? they are in dispute.
Surely if the prosecution had a memo addressed to Libby on this topic, the defense would not be going down this road. What am I missing here, or what is Corn going on about? [TS9 opines ( JustOneMinute: The 'Hubris' Of Richard Armitage ) that Corn is telling us that Marc Grossman of State asked for a memo because he needed answers for Libby; that is ‘almost’ like Libby asking for a memo, then, right? Uh huh.
A very good take on the whole thing from Christopher Hitchens:
The title is quite apt, “Plame Out: The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington.”