Luke_Wilbur

I am really wondering what is going on the DC Baseball Stadium. Is the District still on schedule?

Blueshark, Please notice in our registration guidelines that everytime you post a commercial message that goes against are guidelines you have agreed to donate $5.00 to our community. This covers the monderators time. Luke

RapmasterJohnny, You have shown no proof of a serious accusation of person's character. Yet you decide to publically humiliate this person on hearsay. You offer a list of names as evidence of the statement being true. I ask you again. You state that you work for the law firm of Arnold and Porter. Is this Correct? This is a statement I received from the law firm. You are stating that a user (B.A.) is signing up multiple DC Message Boards user accounts to give the community the impression that many DC Message Board readers are against DC Ward candidate Jonathan Rees. Is this correct? Is it your opinion that (B.A.) supports Sam Brooks? You are not Jonathan Rees. Is that correct? You have not signed up multiple accounts on DC Message Boards. Is this correct?

rapmasterjohnny, I just spoke with Lou Chibbaro of the Washington Blade. Mr. Chibbaro stated he had no more information than the two articles his organization published on the candidates. The Democratic primary for the Ward 3 seat on the D.C. Council is 10 months away, but backers and opponents of rival candidates Sam Brooks and Jonathan Rees have begun a furious debate on local Internet listserves, with one anonymous Web user attempting to portray Brooks as anti-gay. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2005/11-4/n...lnews/ward3.cfm and District dismisses complaint against Broooks Friday, November 11, 2005 The D.C. Office of Campaign Finance says a preliminary review found no evidence to show Ward 3 Council candidate Sam Brooks falsely listed an address in the ward as his residence and campaign headquarters on a candidate declaration form. http://washblade.com/2005/11-11/news/local...s/libs-1111.cfm Making an accusation on a person's character is quite serious. Show your sources of this truth.

rapmasterjohnny, I want to be clear on your story here. You are stating that you work for the law firm of Arnold and Porter. Is this Correct? You are stating that Bill Adler is signing up multiple DC Message Boards user accounts to give the community the impression that many DC Message Board readers are against DC Ward candidate Jonathan Rees. Is this correct? Is it your opinion that Mr. Adler supports Sam Brooks? You are not Jonathan Rees. Is that correct? You have not signed up multiple accounts on DC Message Boards. Is this correct?

Where can I find this story on the Washington Post? Thanks in advance.

President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror President George W. Bush greets the audience after delivering remarks on the war on terror, Friday, Nov. 11, 2005 at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, Pa. White House photo by Eric Draper

James Jesus Angleton died on May 12, 1987. The posts looks like a fictional conversation between Michael Ladeen and James Angleton. That is why you need to put sources of where you are getting this information. U Figure it out, Where did you get this? This piece of fiction has some truth to it. The Italian newspaper La Repubblica has published an exposé alleging that the nation’s military intelligence agency SISMI provided bogus intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war with the knowledge of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The charge follows a parliamentary report released in July concerning the forged Niger uranium documents at the heart of the CIA leak case. The documents, which purported to show a deal between Baghdad and Niger, may have been produced in the Italian capital, the newspaper claims. The July report named four men as the likely masterminds — Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi, and Francis Brookes — and suggests that the plan was conceived at December 2001 meeting in Rome involving Ledeen and SISMI chief Nicolò Pollari. Find More Information at: http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/112...2005/1111.shtml

WHAT HAS BROWN DONE FOR ME The only thing UPS has done for me is a whole lotta BROWN (you can guess what). Yesturday, I requested pickup of a package with a valued over $2000.00. I requested UPS to use my clients UPS customer number. UPS responded that they would pick it up between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm today. By 4:30 pm today I got worried and contacted UPS Customer Service Center located in High Point, North Carolina. I UPS customer service representative by the name of Tiffini. I asked Tiffini when UPS was planning on picking up the merchandise. Tiffini responded in that UPS would pick up the package in one half hour. If there was a problem to call them back and just give them my name and telephone number. At 5:00 pm UPS had still not picked up the package. I call the UPS Customer Service Center again and spoke with a UPS customer service representative by the name of Eric Everett. I told Eric my name, telephone number, and my problem. Eric could not find my pickup request. I asked Eric to speak with a UPS supervisor. Eric transferred me over to Demont Waller, the UPS Superviser. I repeated my name, telephone number, and problem. Mr. Waller said that they would have to send an instant message to the local UPS Customer Center. I asked Mr. Waller if I could just have the UPS Driver number and speak to him myself. Mr. Waller responded that the UPS Communication system is internal and employees only. Mr. Waller then requested that he would have the local UPS Customer Service representative contact me in 5 to 10 minutes. I told Mr. Waller that would be completely unsatisfactory to me. I would rather him contact the local UPS Customer Service Center and get them to call me. Mr. Waller responded that he would call me back personally in 5 to 10 minutes. At 5:40 Mr. Waller called me back and told me that the local UPS Customer Center representative would call me within 5 to 10 minutes. I asked Mr. Waller who was at fault on this delivery. Mr. Waller stated the UPS Customer Service Center was at fault at not picking up my package. So I waited. At 6:00 pm Pat Thorn, the local UPS Customer Service dispatch representative contacted me. I asked Pat what the problem was? She told me that she did not have my information. I gave her my information and Pat told me that she would call me back in 5 to 10 minutes. At 6:15 Pat Thorn called me back. Pat found the ticket and verified that I had made the UPS request. I asked her when I could expect to get my package picked up. Pat responded that the Driver had another pickup and would be coming to my area soon. I asked Pat who she thought was responsible for this mixup. Pat responded that it was the driver's fault. I asked her if my client would be compensated for this mistake. Pat responded that she did not know if UPS does that and told me to speak to her supervisor, Richard Hall. At 7:00 pm the Mr. Davis, the UPS Driver came to pickup my package. He had my information and apoligised for the confusion. I asked him who was at fault. Mr. Davis replied that the fault was his. I asked him if he knew that I requested that this package be picked up by no later than 5:00 pm? Mr. Davis replied that he was not notified of the time requested. I admired Mr. Davis honesty. He even spoke with pride how UPS cares for its customers and how this would not happen again. I wished him good night. I hope UPS learns from this message and does not fault the driver for this major Brown up! Mr. Davis was the only one that actually took responsibility. It was apparent that it was not his. UPS did not recognize the importance of this delivery and did not give Mr. Davis the message. Another thing UPS could learn is that Fedex allows you to speak with their drivers in emergency situations. USPS allows you to speak to their drivers in emergency situations. That is not the case with the Big BROWN. I said my peace.

In six states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey and Washington), congressional redistricting is performed by an independent, bipartisan commission. In the remaining states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, subject to approval by the state governor. Various states also have laws or constitutions mandating that municipal governments do this as well. You may ask yourself, “Why does neither party want to give up control of redistricting?” In most states, incumbent legislators draw the boundaries of their own districts and that of the Congressional districts. The party in power, does two things, they draw districts that favor their party winning the majority of seats, and they draw districts that protect incumbents from any challengers, creating as many “safe” districts as possible. This process has resulted in a surprisingly low number of competitive races around the country. The losers in this battle are democracy and the voters. Most voters do not live in districts where they can unseat an incumbent if they don’t like him or her because the district is stacked against them. Voters can’t hold their elected members accountable and they don’t have the real or perceived power of making a difference. In 2008, there will be more referenda regarding election reform on ballots across the country, and we need to persuade people of both parties that this is not a partisan issue, but a democracy issue. The people win if democracy works.

Joe, The problem is that currently the Able Danger members who know all about the attack on the USS Cole have been placed under gag-orders and are not allowed to speak to any Senate Committees or the media.

Let's hope it stays this way. There are alot of volunteers working to keep these boards clean. Thank you for helping as well Human.

Following is the full text of the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby With approval ratings at 35% I think it time for Rove to quietly leave and the President get some fresh new talent to lead this country. Let's move on.

So JT? Who do you want to represent Ward 3?

Here is the current list of candidates for Election year 2006 and a Declaration of Candidacy for in Adobe Acrobat file format. As you can see Jonathan Rees is listed Sam Brooks is not. DCpages_List_of_Candidates.pdf

I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, will make his first appearance in court today since being indicted last week by a grand jury investigating who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's criticism of the Iraq war. 1:2005-cr-00394-RBW USA vs LIBBY Judge Walton 11/03/2005 10:30AM Courtroom 5 Arraignment Libby is expected to plead not guilty.

November 2, 2005 White House Press Briefing. Scott McClellan is asked about how Karl Rove is performing and the Vice President's involvement in the leak. ********************************* Q Scott, do you think that Karl Rove can adequately carry out his White House duties with the cloud of investigation hanging -- MR. McCLELLAN: He is. Q -- over him? MR. McCLELLAN: He is. Q But it must be somewhat of a distraction -- it doesn't seem like a distraction that's going to go away any time soon? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, if you're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation, I'm just not going to do that. If you have questions that you need to direct to someone's personal attorneys, you're welcome to do that. But we're not going to be talking about it unless we're directed by the Special Counsel or in consultation with the White House Counsel's Office. Q During this period has he ever offered to resign? MR. McCLELLAN: Karl Rove continues to do his duties. He is Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the President. Go ahead. Q Given all the tantalizing questions that were left in the wake of the Special Prosecutor's news conference, et cetera, about Vice President Cheney, does the White House feel that the Vice President should, or does the White House plan to have the Vice President explain his role in all of this any time soon? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've already answered that question. I answered that question on Friday. Just to step back and again reiterate what I said, this is an ongoing investigation and a continuing legal proceeding. And while that matter is ongoing, we are not going to be talking further about it unless directed to do so by the special counsel or in consultation with the White House's Counsel's Office. Q But what about those who believe that taking that position -- in taking that position, you shirk -- "you" being the White House in general -- shirk your responsibility to the public accountability? MR. McCLELLAN: We have a responsibility to make sure that the investigation goes forward and comes to a successful conclusion, hopefully, and that the legal proceeding moves forward in a way that the individual can receive a fair and impartial hearing. Q But do you not also have a responsibility to keep the people who are your constituents, the people of the United States informed? MR. McCLELLAN: We have a responsibility to continue to cooperate with the special counsel, and that's what we're doing. And we believe the best way to do that is not to get into commenting on it from here, because we could prejudice the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. Now, I fully understand that you all are looking for more information and want to get ahead of this matter, but we cannot from our position. We need to do our part to cooperate with the special counsel. That's what we -- Q Don't you end up with a credibility problem -- MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. That's what we've done, and that's what we will continue to do. Q But don't you end up -- don't you end up with a credibility problem? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've already addressed that issue. Q Well, can you address it again? Again, the unanswered question -- MR. McCLELLAN: What's the question? Q Unanswered questions about Vice President Cheney. This is the man who -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we hope people aren't trying to politicize an ongoing investigation. People need to let the investigation continue. Some might try to politicize the investigation, and that's their business. But what we're going to do is not comment on it further from this podium in order to help the investigation move forward and to allow for there to be a fair and impartial hearing. Q But do you feel that it is necessarily politicizing an -- politicizing an investigation to seek -- seek clarification about the actions of the top levels of this White House? MR. McCLELLAN: I've already indicated, one, that we'll be glad to talk more about the matter once it's come to a conclusion

November 2, 2005 White House Press Briefing on Judge Alito's upcoming Supreme Court Nomination ******************************************** Q Let me get -- on one other -- on one other topic, on the Alito nomination. There are conservatives who are -- who relish now the ideological battle that appears to be ahead. And I wonder if you can articulate from the President's perspective the importance of that ideological battle, because there is the likelihood with Judge Alito on the Court that there would be an ideological shift on the Court -- MR. McCLELLAN: I don't see any reason why there should be, if you look back at past precedent and past confirmation hearings. All you have to do is go back and look at the most recent confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg and Supreme Court Justice Breyer were people that represented the judicial philosophy of the President that nominated them to the bench. Yet, they had civil and dignified hearings; they were well qualified, they were highly respected and they were confirmed. Judge Roberts was -- or Chief Justice Roberts, I should say now -- Chief Justice Roberts was someone who had a civil and dignified confirmation process -- in large part, at least it was civil and dignified. So you bring up a question about potential ideological battle or fight, that's up to members of the United States Senate whether or not that would happen. We certainly hope it won't be the case. This is an individual, Judge Alito, who has been unanimously confirmed to the court previously. He was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate back in 1990, to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Q Scott, you repeatedly say that he was confirmed unanimously -- that was 15 years ago, before 15 years of decisions that have allowed people to know more of what he thinks. And even Republican senators have said that this is a man who will spark an apocalyptic showdown in the Senate, that it's going to be a battle. So by pretending that this should be all fine and good you're ignoring the reality of what even members of the Senate of your own party have said -- that it's going to be a tough fight. Does the President feel any obligation or any sense of concern that he's contributed to the atmosphere of divisiveness here in Washington? MR. McCLELLAN: I think that that's an absolutely wrong way to characterize things, because it ignores history. You're ignoring history and you're ignoring recent history. As I pointed out -- remember, Justice Ginsburg replaced Justice White. Now, they were largely perceived as a conservative justice being replaced by a more liberal justice. So if you look at that, the standard has always been based on qualifications and experience. And that's what it should be in this case. Now, some people may want to change that standard. And we certainly hope that's not the case, but you have heard from people who know Judge Alito that he is someone who is highly respected -- both by Democrats and Republicans -- who know him. He is someone who has shown that he is extremely well-qualified to serve on our nation's court. There's no question about his qualifications and experience. And then you go and look at judicial temperament. He is someone that, if you look at the totality of his record, has shown that he is committed to strictly interpreting our Constitution and our laws and not trying to make laws from the bench. He is committed to respect for the rule of law. He is someone who has looked to Supreme Court precedent in making his decisions. So he's someone who is very methodical, carefully looks at the facts, and then applies the law. That's the kind of judge that the American people want on our nation's highest court. And that's why the President nominated him to the bench.

November 2, 2005 White House Press Briefing by Scott McClellan ********************************************** Q Scott, a question about the leak case: The President has made various statements about he would handle anyone who was involved in this, so what standard is the President using for whether he would dismiss any member of his staff for involvement in this affair? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that question has already come up, and I think, again, that I would go back to what I said yesterday. The expectations of everybody here in the White House are well known. We all understand what the expectations are of each of us as individuals. We are all part of a team to help the President advance his agenda and to focus on the American people's business. We also have an expectation on behalf of the President and the American people to adhere to the highest ethical standards. Q And everyone who is currently working here has done that in this affair, is that the President's position? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the nature of the investigation is that is it ongoing, and there is a legal proceeding that is ongoing as part of that investigation. And as part of that ongoing legal proceeding, we're just not having any further comment on it from this podium. Q Everyone who is working at the White House currently, in the President's mind, has acted appropriately in this matter. Is that -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're asking about this matter. This matter is ongoing. Q Wait, wait, wait a second. Right, it's ongoing, but that's not the point. The legal aspect of this is now outside the White House, as you've made abundantly clear. MR. McCLELLAN: The legal proceeding, but there's also an -- there's also an investigation that the special counsel indicated was continuing. So it's two parts. There's an investigation he said that continues, and there's also a legal proceeding that is moving forward on one individual. And under our system of the law, people are presumed innocent unless otherwise proven. Q But whether or not it was a crime, does the President feel that Karl Rove acted appropriately in this matter, given what he knows about his involvement? MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're asking that context -- asking that question in the context of an ongoing investigation and an ongoing legal proceeding. And as I indicated to you all on Friday, our Counsel's Office has directed us not to discuss any issues related to that, whether they're factual circumstances or legal issues relating to the investigation. That's the policy that's been in place for some time, and that's the policy that we're following.

I bet that would be fun to go to. I am going to ask my wife if she is interested.

Thanks Human, I will include the link on DCpages.com Directory as well. On Tuesday, President Bush announced an aggressive $7.1 billion national strategy to safeguard against the danger of pandemic influenza. The request included $6.7 billion in additional 2006 appropriations for HHS. Approximately $4.7 billion would go toward investments in creating vaccine production capacity and stockpiles, $1.4 billion to stockpile antiviral drugs, and $555 for surveillance, public health infrastructure, and communications, including $100 million for state and local preparedness.

To clear the record... any District resident can obtain a declaration of candidacy for a open position before the primary. A candidate like Sam Brooks who lives in Ward 2 may run for an open position in Ward 3. If Sam Brooks gets nominated by his party, then he would be required to move to Ward 3 prior to the the election. The only way Sam Brooks is breaking any law is if he was not living in the District during the time he last ran for a council position.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate calling for a secret session of the Senate. Remarks as prepared: ######################################## “This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. “This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant. “The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. “The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. “As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies. “And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues. “Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. “The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq. “There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. “The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. “Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false. “The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.” “The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims. “What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No. “Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration. “Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why. “There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. “For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent. “Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq. “This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made. “The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better. “They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include: How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore? How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people? What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions? Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements? “Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing. “At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration. “We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.”

Senior White House official I. Lewis Libby was indicted today on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency. Libby was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in a five-count indictment returned today by a federal grand jury and its term expired, announced Justice Department Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The defendant, also known as "Scooter" Libby, has served since January 20, 2001, as Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. Libby, 55, will be arraigned at a later date in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The charges allege that Libby lied to FBI agents who interviewed him on October 14 and November 26, 2003; committed perjury while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004; and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury’s investigation into the unauthorized disclosure – or “leaking” – of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003. Beginning in late May 2003, Libby allegedly began acquiring information about a 2002 trip to the African country of Niger by Joseph Wilson, a former United States Ambassador and career State Department official, to investigate allegations concerning efforts by the former government of Iraq to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. The CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to Niger after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return. Subsequently, Libby allegedly lied about information he discussed about the CIA employment of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, in conversations Libbyhad in June and July2003 with threenews reporters – Tim Russert of NBC News, Matt Cooper of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states. “When citizens testify before grand juries theyarerequired to tell the truth,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. “Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson,” he added. Mr. Fitzgerald announced the charges with John C. Eckenrode, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and the lead agent in the investigation. The Washington Field Office and the Inspection Division of the FBI assisted in the investigation. The indictment alleges that Libby had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community and other government officials regarding sensitive national security matters. With his responsibilities for national security matters, Libby held security clearances giving him access to classified information. Libby was obligated by federal criminal statute, regulations, executive orders, and a written non-disclosure agreement not to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons, and to properly safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. According to the indictment, on September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. In January 2004, the grand jury investigation began examining possible violations of criminal laws prohibiting disclosing the identity of covert intelligence personnel (The Intelligence Identities Protection Act), improperly disclosing national defense information, making false statements to government agents, and perjury. A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson’s employment by the CIA was classified information. The over-arching obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA. The obstruction count alleges that Libby made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements: When Libby spoke with Tim Russert of NBC on or about July 10, 2003, Russert asked Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and told Libby that all the reporters knew it; and Libby was surprised to hear that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA; when, in fact, Libby knew Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Russert tell Libby that all the reporters knew it. And, at the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and Libby had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic. Libby advised Matt Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true; when, in fact, Libby did not advise Cooper during that conversation that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true. Rather, Libby confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Libby advised Judith Miller of The New York Times on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but Libby did not know whether that assertion was true; when, in fact, Libby did not advise Miller during that conversation that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise her that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true. Among the events leading up to these conversations, on January 28, 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union address which included sixteen words asserting that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” On May 6, 2003, The New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the “sixteen words” in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President’s office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents. According to the indictment, beginning in late May and throughout June, Libby participated in multiple conversations concerning Valerie Wilson’s employment by the CIA, including on the following occasions: • on or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, Libby asked an Undersecretary of State for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger. The Undersecretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Undersecretary provided Libby with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised Libby that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip; • on or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of Libby and another person in the Vice President’s office. The documents, which bore classification markings, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, Libby and one or more other persons in the Vice President’s office handwrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents; • on or about June 11 or 12, 2003, Libby was orally advised by the Undersecretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the organization of his trip; • on or about June 11, 2003, Libby was informed by a senior officer of the CIA that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip; • prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President about a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. Libby participated in discussions in the Vice President’s office concerning how to respond to Pincus; • on or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA; • on or about June 14, 2003, Libby met with a CIA briefer and expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger; • shortly after publication on or about June 19, 2003, of an article in The New Republic magazine online entitled “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War,” Libbyspoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line; and • on or about June 23, 2003, Libby met with Judith Miller of The New York Times. Libby was critical of the CIA and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, Libby informed Miller Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA. On July 6, 2003, The New York Times published an opinion article by Joseph Wilson entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” On the same day, the Washington Post published an article about Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger, which was based partially on an interview of Wilson, and he was a guest on the television program “Meet the Press.” In the article he wrote, as well as in the print and broadcast interviews of him, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq has sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson said that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Vice President’s office was advised of the results of his trip. Following Wilson’s July 6, 2003 statements, according to the indictment, Libby engaged in the following actions: • on or about July 7, 2003, Libby had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised that individual that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, noting that such information was not widely known; • on or about the morning of July 8, 2003, Libby met with Miller of The New York Times. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, Libby asked that the information he provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” ratherthan to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding regarding other information that Libby provided to Miller during this meeting. Libby then discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, Libby advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA; • also on or about July 8, 2003, Libby met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s office. During their brief conversation, Libby asked the individual what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip; • no earlier than June 2003 but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and advised Libby of this information; • on or about July 10, 2003, Libby spoke to NBC’s Russert to complain about press coverage of Libby by an MSNBC reporter. Libby did not discuss Wilson’s wife with Russert; • on or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, Libby spoke to a senior White House official (“Official A”)who advised Libbyof a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife; • on or about July 12, 2003, Libby flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Va., on Air Force Two. On his return trip, Libby discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time’s Cooper; • on or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. Libby confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too; and • on or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone with Miller and discussed Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA. The false statement charge in Count Two of the indictment alleges that Libby lied to FBI agents on October 14 and November 26, 2003, regarding the conversation with Russert on July 10, 2003. Count Three charges Libby with making false statements to FBI agents during the same FBI interviews in October and November 2003 relating to his July 12, 2003 conversation with Cooper. The perjury charge in Count Four alleges that Libby lied while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5, 2004, about his conversation with Russert on July 10, 2003, because, in fact, Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Russert tell Libby that all the reporters knew it, and at the time of their conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Count Five charges Libby with perjury before the grand juryfor allegedlylying when he said that he told reporters that he was telling them what other reporters were saying – first, on March 5, 2004, about his conversation with Cooper on or about July 12, 2003, and second, on March 24, 2004, regarding conversations with reporters. In fact, Libby well knew that he did not advise Cooper or other reporters that he had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise Cooper or other reporters that he did not know whether this assertion was true. If convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties on each count: obstruction of justice – 10 years in prison, and making false statements and perjury –5 years in prison, and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000, making the maximum penalty for conviction on all counts 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine. Note, however, that the Court would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said it would take two weeks for the government to present its case against Libby, and the timing would depend on pre-trial motions by his attorneys.

ABC News just reported... Vice President Dick Cheney's chief advisor I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will be indicted today in the CIA leak investigation, sources close to the case told ABC News. Top White House strategist Karl Rove will evade charges for now. A source close to the White House told ABC News that Libby's "boxes are packed" and that he will resign from his post after the indictment. Papers containing information pertaining to the investigation will be made public this afternoon while Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor appointed to lead the investigation, will make remarks on the case at 2 p.m. ET. Rove, deputy White House chief of staff and Bush's closest adviser, appears to have escaped indictment, but Fitzgerald is expected to continue his investigation. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/CIALeak...tory?id=1259169