Talk:United States v. Libby

Notes and References format

There is a problem in the citations formatting in this article. It is not consistent. Some of the sources do not post correctly as notes. There is a mixture of external links and note numbers with further external links following some notes. That is confusing. It needs re-formatting into one consistent format. --NYScholar 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Press coverage of the trial

The section currently in the article Lewis Libby would be more effectively placed here, but that cannot be done in a way that will preserve the notes features in that article. The notes and references format inconsistency in this article needs to be fixed (see my previous section comment) before the section can be correctly moved into this article. I am not familiar with using the citations format that previous editor or editors developed, so someone else who is familiar with the format used needs to fix the problem and to re-format citations in the section on "press coverage" in the course of moving it or copying it to this article. --NYScholar 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Someone has added material w/ notes in a format that doesn't match the already-existing and prevailing format in this article (that another editor began). I do not know this format and do not use it. The Press coverage in the Libby main article follows a diff. prevailing format. Please either remove the extra section or edit it so that it matches what is already in "References" format. --NYScholar 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since posting the previous comment, I've tried to integrate chronologically some of the information added in odd places by another editor. The Notes problems still exists. I've also incorporated the Press coverage of the trial section in this article, but the Notes problem needs fixing still: please see my explanations in the editing history, in my interpolated editorial notes (which show up only in editing mode), and in Talk:Lewis Libby. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagged with semi-protection

Due to recent vandalism in the article Lewis Libby; see Talk:Lewis Libby for another editor's tagging that article; this article is being tagged for same reasons. --NYScholar 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Background

Minor detail: shouldn't the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Libby is charged with five counts, all related to alleged involvement in Plame affair, the "outing" of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame"

be replaced with something like: "Libby is charged with five counts, all related to allegedly false statements made during the investigation of Plame affair, the "outing" of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame"

He was not charged with anything involving the actual "outing" -- only with making false statements during the ensuing investigation regarding how he found out about Plame's identity.

Polacrilex 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That suggested wording is good; the phrasing should be "the Plame affair", though. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix the misleading wording by placing the phrase "pursuant...investigation" in the sentence. It is accurate now. Please don't change it back to incorrect information. --NYScholar 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Template tag was added on March 6, 2007 for same reasons as added to Lewis Libby; see editing history of this article when it was added first; and Talk:Lewis Libby. These articles have been subject to vandalism and are therefore being semi-protected to help prevent recurring vandalism. --NYScholar 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Please do not add material to external links that is inappropriate for placement in this section. Someone added: <<

• Shame on the Washington Post, Again... False Claims ... that Plame was not a covert CIA officer involved with sensitive counter-proliferation operations – and that therefore no real crime was committed when the Bush administration leaked her identity. ... Toensing leaves out, however, that it has been Libby’s defense lawyers who have fought to exclude evidence of Plame’s covert CIA status because they regard the fact as likely to prejudice the jury against their client.

>>

This was presented in incorrect format as an external link, when it appears to be a reply to another article, which is not cited as an external link. Please don't toss in items in this manner. "Full citations" are needed for controversial articles, and the material has to be relevant to the subject. If there is to be some discussion of this topic in the article proper, then perhaps it can be added as a source citation. This is not an appropriate manner of including it. It needs full rewriting as to pertinence and relevance to the some part of this article. Quotation marks are necessary when quoting passages from published material as well as full citations; for related editing guidelines and policies, see: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; WP:Cite; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV; WP:BLP; WP:Notability. --NYScholar 05:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated above--I added a section to incorporate it and some other external links as "other references" and I also added the source to the article on Plame Affair. It contains a link to the Toensing article it replies to. --NYScholar 09:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add it in a new section of "Additional references', but realized that some earlier ed. or eds. had lost a whole group of full citations previously in the article. The notes sections need to be combined into one section in the format of the second notes section: see the editing comments in editing mode in the article. I don't know what someone or some people did to lose all those earlier notes, but I've restored them for the time being until the article's notes can be cleaned up properly so that all the notes in the first section of notes match the format in the second section. There should be no external links in the text of this article. All the notes need to be "full citations": Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 07:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Faulty or outdated links

Current numberd ext. links in notes are problematic: for some I've provided pdf links that needed full citations; some seem outdated and all of them need full citations for proper sourcing. In attempt to make notes consistent, some prev. citations may have been lost and need full or better restoration. I've started the format. The rest of article needs similar cleanup. See the earlier comments re: this problem. --NYScholar 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [updated]--NYScholar 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of topics related to the content of this article

For discussion of topics related to the content of this article, please see: Talk:Lewis Libby. Replies to related queries by others and issues raised by them are there. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts of the charges

I came here to read up on actual facts of the charges. I am just wondering if there's anyway to add to the article the quotes of what statements he made that the prosocuter charged as contradictory in order to get the perjury charge or what actions he took to get obstruction charge. Ryratt 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Commutation and pardons

I heard a different take on this today, and I'm wondering if anyone can clarify this... If Bush had fully pardoned Libby, and he was then called to testify in court or in front of congress, he could not plead the 5th or have any other excuse not to testify because he would be fully immune from prosecution. But since he has not been pardoned, he is not immune from further prosecution. So assuming the Bush administration has something to hide, does it help keep Libby quiet by commuting his sentence instead of pardoning him? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What an interesting question. I am not an attorney, but believe that even if he had been fully pardoned, he could still be re-called to testify, and again charged if he failed to tell the truth. Remember that he was charged for specific charges of purjury and obstruction - and that they were in the past. It is hard (but not impossible) to imagine Bush giving a pardon for intended future crimes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.202.139 (talk • contribs) 11:27, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Decision

I'd like some feedback on putting some information into this article, on whether it is too "political." Though this really is an incredibly political topic. Senator Joe Biden wrote on his blog at criticizing Bush' ineptitude for not talking to the DoJ about commuting his sentence in light of the fact that just last year his administration had filed an amicus curaie brief actually supporting a 33 month sentence for a 25 year career marine found guilty of the same crimes of perjury and obstruction. This is newsworthy since his blog post has been picked up all over the internet. You can find this by searching for terms in his blog through google.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.202.139 (talk • contribs) 11:27, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my original comment was misleading, as well as the blog post itself, it may not actually be Biden speaking, rather a frontman for Biden.

• http://blog.joebiden.com/?p=693 - Biden's original post
• http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/3mer/2mer/2006-5754.mer.aa.pdf - the Amicus Curaie brief against Victor Rita --167.206.202.139 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I merely question whether Oberman's editorializing is appropriate here. My uninformed opinion of what the proticol should be would permit inclusion of comments of those directly involved, but not the editorial comments of pundits frome either side. (So Wilson, Fitzgerald, Libby, and Gonzales comments would be appropriate, while Limbaugh's and Oberman's would not.)

"On the following evening, in a special commentary Olbermann called for both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney to resign.[79]"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.124.38 (talk • contribs) 09:10, July 7, 2007 (UTC)

Making reference to Keith Olbermann's "point of view" is just like making reference to any other "editorials" (many of which are cited in the articles pertaining to this subject as sources of "points of view" on the subject): it is in keeping with WP:POV especially concerning WP:BLP#Well known public figures. [Please sign your comment with four tildes, thank you; one can locate the user in editing history.] --NYScholar 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Including various points of view (from reliable and verifiable sources, like Olbermann) is in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It's we editors who are not supposed to be inserting our own points of view into Wikipedia articles. Presenting a wide spectrum of points of view maintain neutrality. President Bush's cited and quoted "Proclamation" and "Statement" about his commutation of Libby's prison sentence is one "point of view"; journalists' editorials and "special comment[s]" provide other points of view. Limiting the article to presenting only President Bush's point of view would be violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. (Keith Olbermann is not a "pundit"; he is a journalist, with a highly-rated and highly-watched program on a major media cable network, MSNBC.) --NYScholar 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (updated. --NYScholar 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Earlier missing citation

Proper "full citation" is needed for an earlier Olbermann ref. (Wilson's quotation) [tagged "fact" template]; need a transcript as source? See WP:Cite, WP:BLP; see tagged notices at top of page. --NYScholar 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC) [updated: --NYScholar 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)]

Citations

In making deletions from this article, please make sure that you are not deleting the first full citation for a source that is referred back to in codes throughout the article. Responsibility for maintaining the integrity of source citations (full citations according to prevailing citation format of article) is the responsibility of the editors making any such deletions of material. Previous editors making deletions without concern for follow-up citations may not have realized the problems caused by such deletions. Please maintain vigilance. (See editing history of this article; see also related secs. of Talk:Lewis Libby and talk page archives. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In editing this article, I messed up the citations. My apologies. I do think, however, that the article as it stood was too long and its structure too convoluted for people who know little about the subject. That is why I have reordered it and added a bit more context about the connection to the Plame affair. 195.73.22.130 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Still missing the basics, including Facts of the charges

As RyRatt noted eight years ago, this article still doesn't include the actual charges against Libby. It hardly qualifies as encyclopedic, missing the central information on a trial. It would be like having an article about the OJ trail without mentioning that he was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend.

If I can find them, I will add them.

ZeroXero (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United States v. Libby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528062030/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100922140112/http://www.nationaljournal.com:80/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm to http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070307104637/http://www.cnn.com:80/SPECIALS/2005/cia.leak/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/cia.leak/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070307104637/http://www.cnn.com:80/SPECIALS/2005/cia.leak/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/cia.leak/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091017203529/http://www.usdoj.gov:80/usao/iln/osc/ to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States v. Libby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103105658/http://boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/05/judge_libby_could_face_longer_sentence/?page=full to http://boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/05/judge_libby_could_face_longer_sentence/?page=full

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)