Talk:Scooter Libby

Spelling, grammar, typos, from a NPOV

This sentence is repeated twice in the introduction and one copy should be removed. "Libby's lawyers announced that he would seek a new trial, and, if that attempt fails, they will appeal Libby's conviction."Rob944s2 18:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial topic

This is obviously a controversial topic. In the event you wish to raise a certain issue, please consider consulting the archives ([all] of them) to see if it has already been addressed or discussed. Eusebeus 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[Archive updated; changed "both" to "all" above. [updated after archiving of all below. --NYScholar 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

Is there a need to constantly archive this talk page?--RWilliamKing 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When the current talk page gets too long, messages appear saying that it should be archived [e.g., "This page is 80 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidance."]; moreover, if you want the evidence of the previous contents of the talk page not to be "tampered with", as you stated (see archive 6 now), then archiving the talk page contents will protect it from such tampering. See the header on the archived talk pages. People can consult the archived talk pages for their contents. --NYScholar 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See particularly Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long for more info. --NYScholar 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please follow proper procedure

From the heading: "Put new text under old text." Please also do not reply to another user's comments by breaking them up. Notmyrealname 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

To all users: ...See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for the actual Wikipedia guidelines and "proper procedure." It is Wikipedia "proper procedure" in talk pages to thread one's own comments in responding to others' comments. See the archived talk pages for the contexts for the need to follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and consult the guidelines themselves for "proper procedure"; proper procedure includes threading (use of colons) in responding to parts of another user's comments; for more, see the headings in the guidelines, such as: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments; other offficial Wikipedia guidelines may be found on the main page. See the same link to these guidelines in the header at the top of this current talk page. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See particularly, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments for the bulleted guidelines on "Interruptions"; namely, "In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "Headline added to (reason) by NYScholar 00:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which got interrupted by the following: before the interruption." For exact guidelines, please consult the linked material. [E.g., Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards.] Thank you. --NYScholar 00:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was following "Answer underneath a post: Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts" when I moved NYScholar's post about "POV forking" below the earlier post that I had made. My other comment in the RFC was not of sufficient length to justify breaking it up. Notmyrealname 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not alter other people's posts unnecessarily; it can result in altering the actual chronological order of posts (as it did earlier--see archive page 6, where my post was moved to after another one posted later). When an editor adds a note in brackets, the brackets indicate clearly that it is a necessary addition as deemed by the editor who added it. Please respect other people's civil comments. WP:NPA applies to non-civil comments, and they may be removed by those offended by them. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments and WP:NPA. Thank you. As I stated above in this section, users can consult the guidelines themselves, as they are clearly linked both at the top of this page and in this section. They are unambiguous. [Please note: As an academic editor, I do correct my own minor typographical errors (tc).] --NYScholar 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolving disputes

The disputes previously affecting Lewis Libby are detailed in the archived talk pages. Before participating in them or participating in them further, please consult for advice: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Matters currently still in arbitration and relating to the protection of this article on Lewis Libby are linked in archived talk page 6. --NYScholar 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of information:The matter of citing Kampeas' article documenting Libby's being Jewish is first raised by other users (some unsigned/undated, some signed/dated) in archive 1 of this talk page (circa Oct. 2005): Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 1#Religion. Please check the subsequent archived pages for further discussion by various Wikipedia users of this fact and their and my documented evidence of reliable sources--WP:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Attribution--citing that fact and the relevance of those sources' documentation and discussion of the fact to this public figure's biography and to publicly-debated issues by reliable sources pertaining to aspects of his public service as a government official relating to such important other Wikipedia subjects as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and its resulting United States v. Libby. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional biographical sources pertaining to Lewis Libby

• Bromell, Nick. "Scooter Libby and Me". The American Scholar (Phi Beta Kappa) (Winter 2007). Accessed 25 Apr. 2007. Online reposting. Alternet 16 Jan. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007.

Nick Bromell, Professor of English and Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, is an "old friend of Scooter Libby's" from boarding school, "deeply opposed to the Bush administration, which [he] regards as dishonest and dangerous," who "believes that Scooter and his neoconservative colleagues have not only set the nation on a disasterous course, they have also destroyed my father's lifelong effort to make U.S. policy in the Middle East more responsive to the realities on the ground": "I went away to boarding schools in the early 1960s, and at one of these [Eaglebrook] my best friend was a boy named Scooter -- Lewis 'Scooter' Libby -- who grew up to become Paul Wolfowitz's protégé, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and one of the Bush administration's strongest advocates for the war in Iraq...."

• –––. "Scooter's Tragic Innocence: Why My Friend Scooter Libby Is Loyal to Bush, Cheney and an Arrogant Administration Whose Values Are Not His Own". Salon 24 Jan. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007. (Premium content; restricted access.) Online reposting. Democratic Underground Discussion Forum 24 Jan. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007.

Another profile by Nick Bromell, "someone who's an old friend of Scooter Libby's and at the same time a frustrated critic of the Bush administration," who has "known Scooter since we were both 11-year-old 'new boys' at a boarding school [Eaglebrook] in New England....Later we were roommates, co-captains of the debating team, and later still we both went to Andover. We had the same teachers, read the same books, and played hundreds of hours of touch football together. We were close friends, drawn to each other not just by shared interests but by a shared position on the cruel status ladder of these elite prep schools. In a world dominated by rich WASP jocks, we were both too small to play varsity sports. Scooter was a Jew. I was a scholarship boy whose family never owned a car."

These are recently-published, detailed profiles by an authoritative reliable source (published originally in reliable and verifiable sources) who had been a close friend of Lewis "Scooter" Libby; they may provide additional biographical information and insights about Scooter Libby; despite their differences in political points of view, Bromell and Libby were friends at least until the writing of these essays: In the earlier one, Bromell writes:

"In my hotter moments—I have fewer and fewer cool moments these days—I ask Scooter whether his political identification with homophobia is distinguishable from a political identification with racism or anti-Semitism. And convinced that it is not, I sit down at my desk to do it: to write the letter telling Scooter that I can no longer be his friend, not even in the rather distant way we have been friends for all these years.

Today, my old friend is under indictment for obstructing justice by lying about his knowledge of the Valerie Plame affair. Unless his lawyers manage to engineer a miracle, he will be tried in court early in 2007. There he will face the distinct possibility of public disgrace and a career-terminating jail sentence. So what should I hope for, I ask myself: my old friend’s acquittal or his conviction?"

Bromell ends the essay saying that he hopes for his friend's acquittal for personal reasons and his conviction for political ones, it seems. He seems still in a quandary, torn between his own political views and his personal feelings for Scooter his boyhood friend of old and longstanding adult friend, able to "see both ways at once" (11). --NYScholar 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Nick Bromell", KFNX AM 1100 (Phoenix, Arizona), accessible in MP3 format, relates to the article in The American Scholar and was broadcast on 26 Jan. 2007.

It is interesting, I think, to listen to, as Bromell elaborates some of his points in the article published in TAS. Re: Libby's full given name: Asked by Charles Goyette what the "I." in I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby stands for, first Bromell says "Irv[e]" and then "Irving," so that is still in limbo; given his answer, it would seem that "Irve" or "Irv" is the nickname for the fuller given name "Irving," however; when asked if Libby's last name was always "Libby," Bromell says that that is the only last name that he knew him by (since they were 11 years old). As Bromell is an English professor as well as an old friend of Libby's, they also discuss Libby's novel The Apprentice, with some biographical focus. --NYScholar 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Like many other sites, the antiwar.com notice of the interview also links to the profile of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby at Right Web: Exposing the architecture of power that's changing our world:

• "Profile: I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby". Right Web, International Relations Center (IRC). Last updated 21 Mar. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007.

This detailed "Profile" could be added to "Related external links" in the main article: I list it for consideration, along with the previous sources on this current talk page and already listed in Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 6. --NYScholar 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

quote request

article says Patrick Fitzgerald "noted also that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby."[emph mine] is sourced to 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for March 6. i was unable to find a quote in the article clearly substantiating this statement. Doldrums 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fitzgerald's cited statement also pertains to the previous source given in the notes in the sentence right before that: MSNBC article in relation to his original news conference about Libby's indictment (Oct. 28, 2005): WaPO transcript of Fitzgerald news conference (currently n. 29 [& others] in Valerie Plame): see section of article cited at end of previous sentence:

No more charges:“The results are actually sad,” Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said. “It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did.”

Fitzgerald said the CIA leak investigation was now inactive. “I do not expect to file any additional charges,” he said. “We’re all going back to our day jobs.”

[Note well: The citation to the source is not to merely one transcript as the above comment says; it's to "video clips," which are several on the MSNBC Hardball webpage linked in the citation note. See Editing history to note. There are various video clips on the site, including video footage from Fitzgerald's comments to the media.]

The key point is that because of Libby's obstruction of justice and the lies, Fitzgerald has said, as documented in his news conference re: the indictment of Libby (in 2005), that there was a "cloud" (see next sentence; Chris Mathews' source) over the investigation, and it was not possible for investigators and the grand jury thus to identify who else [Fitzgerald] might needed to have "charged" ("additional charges"); that was Fitzgerald's original claim about the effects of the obstruction of justice in his grand jury testimony and lies in Libby's interviews with the FBI, which led to his convictions in United States v. Libby: that the investigation was "impeded" by [because of] Libby's obstruction of it [cf. active voice used by Media Matters as cited below: Libby's obstruction impeded the investigation]:

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.
You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.
FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.
And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

Please see the citations to Fitzgerald's post-conviction comments to the media (in various articles cited) [here's another source for the video of the remarks--WMV at crooks and liars which could be an additional source given] and click also on the video link to the Chris Mathews program: Hardball video: "The Cloud Over Dick Cheney"; there are other links provided in the webpage for the Hardball (printed) source citation, where that link is also listed. [An article by Neil Lewis quoting Fitzgerald's comments to the press was published by the New York Times on March 7, 2007: "THE LIBBY VERDICT; Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case" (requires log in; possibly TimesSelect subscr.; I've read and verified this article via mine). A possible additional sentence to quote from this NYT article by Lewis is: "In remarks to reporters outside the courthouse, Mr. Fitzgerald also addressed at length the criticism of his decision to prosecute Mr. Libby on charges of lying to investigators while not charging anybody with leaking Ms. Wilson's name to reporters." See the WMV (or QuickTime) video for those remarks.]

[Perhaps after (a) subsequent editor(s) deleted that sentence, when (a) later editor(s) restored the sentence, s/he or they placed it after the note number instead of before it and perhaps it now needs an additional source. Originally, it had verified sources (deleted along with it earlier), and its original source substantiates the statement]. It also refers to his original news conference [about] the "cloud" over the CIA leak grand jury investigation cast by Libby's obstruction of justice [a key part of his closing arguments], [which] is what he said initially (using his baseball metaphor): see the longer discussion and the sources in the cross-linked articles in "See also"; espec. the Plame affair--recently renamed CIA leak scandal (2003)--(cross-linked articles there--e.g., Valerie Plame), and United States v. Libby). When the protection is lifted, perhaps editors will try to correct any typographical errors remaining in this article and restore any additional missing sources. Thanks for your observation. [I and others reading these comments duly note it and will rectify it when possible.] (I may look for the exact source later, if it got deleted by accident or somehow confused throughout earlier edits.) --NYScholar 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like OR to me. we need more than two bits of information, viz. Libby obstructed, no charges filed against anyone else, to make a statement that charges were not filed because of what Libby did. the Fitzgerald statement above too doesn't help much, it appears to be a general comment about why obstruction charges shld be taken seriously rather than saying specifically that what Libby did made filing charges impossible. i haven't looked at the videos and maybe some sources have been mistakenly deleted, but i don't think the quoted text substantiates what the article says. Doldrums 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

United States v. Libby relies on the same March 6 Hardball episode as source. Doldrums 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please examine the sources cited [... and] documented. You need to "look at the videos" of the cited sources before you make unfounded claims based on them. [...]The [cited] sources document Fitzgerald's statements to the media both after the verdict and in his press conference relating to the original indictments against Libby, 4 of which he was judged guilty & convicted. The convictions mean that he [Libby] obstructed justice through false statements (lies) and perjury before the grand jury and in his testimony to the FBI. Fitzgerald makes it crystal clear that due to Libby's false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice, he impeded the grand jury investigation about the CIA leak. [Those are the crimes (which all pertain to the grand jury investigation, including the FBI interviews that were part of it) for which [the jury convicted] Libby in United States v. Libby.] --NYScholar 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [clarified in brackets; added link. --NYScholar 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]

If there is a mistake in someone's exact wording of a sentence citing the sources, it can be corrected later, after the protection of this article is lifted. Citing reliable sources and documenting them is not "original research." That is an unfounded charge. Just examine the editing history and read the citations in the notes more carefully. If the sentence that you question needs to be somewhat reworded, it can be reworded later. Fitzgerald clearly states that Libby "obstructed justice" and "impeded" the investigation of the grand jury. There is no "original research"; it is direct quotation from Fitzgerald's own statements. That is what "obstruction of justice" means (as F. says). It means that the lying impeded the investigation making it impossible to know who did what, when, and why (as the indictment states and as Fitzgerald states in his press conference about it [and in his closing arguments, also a context to which the post-verdict comments to the media relate]. --NYScholar 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[I have provided some typographical corrections and updated in brackets for greater clarity. Sorry if my previous explanation was less clear than I intended. See my most recent reply re: active voice v. passive voice and the importance of the contexts of Fitzgerald's Feb. 20, 2007 closing arguments at trial and earlier post-indictment press conference of Oct. 28, 2005 for understanding the content of his comments to the media after the verdict. All these sources pertain to understanding what he [Fitzgerald] was referring to in referring to Libby's obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements during the grand jury investigation, the crimes [for which (in United States v. Libby), the United States (represented by the prosecutor Fitzgerald) tried and convicted Libby....] --NYScholar 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [and further clarified in brackets, I hope. Sorry for any previous unintended lack of clarity in these sentences. --NYScholar 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]

For further documented reliable sources, see also all the coverage in the articles listed in "Related external links": the sources are listed so that one can consult them for the news of the day: there are also video clips linked in a variety of them and other news sites, such as PBS (The News Hour with Jim Lehrer): e.g., news clips of juror Denis Collins and of Patrick Fitzgerald's and others' comments to the media are provided throughout the news sites: e.g, Denis Collins: March 6. Reading documented reliable news sources and clicking on links provided in them is not "original research"; the sources are documented: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Attribution, etc. Scroll through them. As I've already said, I'm sure that if there are some actual mistakes in language of a sentence or in placement of a note, it can be fixed. WP:AGF. --NYScholar 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Among the live-blogging accredited court press blog accounts is one filed in Firedoglake by Christy Hardin Smith on March 6th, describing Fitzgerald's remarks to the media after the verdict; the video clips of those remarks are in the MSNBC, CNN, and other media video clips: "Fitzgerald post trial press conference". The more-detailed links to reliable verifiable documented sources are also in United States v. Libby (See this article's See also sec.). --NYScholar 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another useful reliable verifiable source re: Fitzgerald's comments to the media and other issues after the Libby (mostly) guilty verdict is Media Matters: "Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for", Media Matters 6 March 2007, accessed 26 April 2007. --NYScholar 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC):

[links embedded in source] No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

--NYScholar 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the sentence may need a time-related verb tense correction with an additional repetition of the second note following the sentence that precedes it in the main text and also an additional note to Fitzgerald's remarks in his Oct. 28, 2005 news conference; I think that the original intention of this sentence was to refer back to Fitzgerald's earlier remarks (played in various video clips) for context for his March 6, 2007 media comments:

current sentence in article:

He noted also that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby.

[possible corrected sentence] E.g.:

He noted also earlier (in his news conference announcing the indictment of Libby on 28 Oct. 2005 and in his closing arguments in United States v. Libby) that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of Libby's obstruction of justice.

Notes

--NYScholar 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [[tc; added links. --NYScholar 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]

I just checked United States v. Libby again: the above suggested sentence is consistent with the sentence in United States v. Libby that:

Speaking to the media after the verdict, Fitzgerald reiterated his earlier claims that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby."(followed by the same citation to the video clips presented on MSNBC's Hardball).

If one wants to add these additional other three sources listed above, one can do so for further clarification of sources. The intended meaning of that sentence seems clear and clearly documented to me. --NYScholar 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For a related reliable verifiable source citing Fitzgerald's comments about how Libby's obstruction of justice (including the perjury before the grand jury and false statements to the FBI) in the CIA leak grand jury investigation prevented him from knowing the facts and thus prevented him from possibly bringing other charges in the leak investigation: see: Dan Froomkin, "The Cloud Over Cheney", The Washington Post 21 February 2007, accessed 26 April 2007; this documents Fitzgerald's closing arguments in the trial that are among the legal contexts for Fitzgerald's post-verdict comments to the media (and those are also already documented in the cross-linked article United States v. Libby). Anyone following the trial and reading the reliable verifiable sources already cited and documenting both Lewis Libby and United States v. Libby would recognize that these are the arguments of the prosecution (Fitzgerald) that his post-verdict comments refer to. Various sources documenting the court transcripts, orders, and arguments pre- and post-indictment and in the trial itself are clearly linked in the notes and references for both articles. --NYScholar 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[updated:] Another video clip source posted via Hardball is the one re: those "closing arguments": Hardball video clip posted at MSNBC; transcript of the remarks by Michael Isikoff are also accessible via the MSNBC Hardball link pertaining to what Dan Froomkin quotes in the WaPo print source; they both quote Fitzgerald's remarks about "the cloud over Cheney" in those closing arguments. The argument is that if Libby hadn't lied and been "protecting the Vice President of the United States" that other people (such as the VP) may have been "charged" by the CIA leak grand jury investigation; that is explicitly Fitzgerald's point of view to which he was referring in his comments to the media after Libby's guilty verdict. --NYScholar 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

do these 10,000 bytes above mean that you can post a direct quote from one or more of the sources saying no else "was charged because of Libby's obstruction"? if yes, then the point can be more easily made by simply posting that quote here. Doldrums 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What you've done in your own paraphrase is to change the previous active voice of the verb (Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, on behalf of the grand jury=agent of the active voice), which is clear, to passive voice, making it unclear (ambiguous) who was and would be doing the "charg[ing]": see the previously-quoted sentence from Media Matters above (not that there's anything inaccurate about what's already in this Libby article or in the US v. Libby article). If one needs a direct quotation, one can incorporate it in the already-existing sentence preceded by a colon, followed by proper notes: e.g., "Libby's obstructions prevented him [Fitzgerald] -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law" and possibly bringing additional charges. The sentence in United States v. Libby (and in this article) still seems fine to me and supported by the sources. Please read them and look at the video clips linked as sources. The current sentences in these articles say the same thing in other words. (E.g., "had been unable to formulate" [active voice; notice past perfect verb tense]="was prevented from formulating" [passive voice].) Fitzgerald is speaking about himself (on behalf of the grand jury); there is no reason to lose the focus on him (or it) as agents of the action in these sentences. Thanks. -- NYScholar 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through some of my own earlier comments in this section and tried to clarify my own uses of passive voice which could lead to any confusions and to illustrate how the active voice is clearer than the passive voice in that the active voice identifies the agents of actions, whereas the passive voice obscures them, "clouding" such matters of who is doing and saying what to whom, etc. (I think that later editors can fairly easily correct whatever problems may remain with the sentence that Doldrums questions in this section fairly easily by providing Fitzgerald's direct quotations from the media clips on March 6, 2007 and by providing quotations of sources like Media Matters placing them in context of his closing arguments at trial and his earlier press conference about indicting Libby, which led to the trial. I prefer the version of the sentence in United States v. Libby, followed by the several notes that I've already suggested above. --NYScholar 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

E.g., with slight changes: "Speaking to the media after the verdict, Fitzgerald reiterated his earlier claims (in the news conference on 28 Oct. 2005 and in his closing arguments on 20 Feb. 2007) that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of Libby's obstruction of justice." [see editorial interpolation in editing mode.] --NYScholar 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or--"Speaking to the media after the verdict in United States v. Libby, Fitzgerald reiterated his earlier claims (in the news conference about Libby's indictment on 28 Oct. 2005 and in his closing arguments at trial on 20 Feb. 2007) that Libby's obstruction of justice had prevented him from formulating any additional charges in the CIA leak grand jury investigation."[followed by the note(s).] That sentence seems accurate to me, based on the sources that I cite above, including the news media video clips posted on MSNBC (e.g., in the webpages of Hardball; CNN; and the discussion by Media Matters. --NYScholar 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

as the following suggested sources do not bear out the statement in the article that Fitzgerald said he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else [...] because of the obstruction of justice by Libby. i've tagged it with a citation needed tag.

• 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for March 6 transcript
• Jurors convict Libby on four of five charges
• Fitzgerald's Press Conference October 28, 2005

lots of other sources have also been suggested in the long discussion above, but i expect to see one or two to be identified and quotes excerpted, if the statement is to remain in the article. Doldrums 21:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Can you please stop dumping material that you think should be included in the article on the talk page because the article is locked? You're pushing down all debate into the archives; this talk page isn't for writing your own "Lewis Libby" article. You have made almost literally hundreds of edits per day on the same material over and over in the talk pages. The talk page is not a playground. It's almost spam-worthy. --RWilliamKing 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to your comments above, RWilliamKing (see "Quote Request" posted by other Doldrums). I was responding to the need for sources raised by the person who posted this section. Earlier I added sources for the use of others. Those are reasonable good-faith edits, which I explained that I was doing on my own talk page. I don't know what your interest in this article is, but you seem to appear sporadically to make complaints. The sources that I cited (not "dumped") are reasonable sources to consider pertaining to subjects of this article. There is no so-calling "dumping" going on my posts. WP:AGF. And I am not creating any "spam" in this talk page. The sources and explanations of them were simply in response to the most recent query by Doldrums and earlier questions by others (many others) about content in the main article. Re: your repeated complaints despite the clear need for archiving in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Again, please stop these unwarranted allegations. Anyone can consult the archived talk pages for previous discussions; that's what archiving is for. I object to the tone of your comments throughout. I spent a lot of my time providing sources for the benefit of those interested in the subject of this article (Lewis Libby); that may or may not be you. From your tone and your complaints, it is hard to tell why you are dropping into this talk page. The talk page is for making improvements to this article on Libby. That is what I have continually been trying to do. [I make typographical corrections to errors that I make in my comments, which I often do not see despite previewing before posting. That is why there are many edits. If I find a way to improve the information that I have provided, or my own explanations of it, I try to do that within brackets.] --NYScholar 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]

Regarding your reference to "because the article is locked"; Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles requires discussion of any substantial edits to the content of controversial articles prior to making them in the article. While the article is protected, I have been suggesting some additional sources that other people might want to consider in the talk page of this article prior to making any such substantive edits to the article. That is preferred talk page procedure. "Full citations" are also required in WP:BLP and in such controversial articles. I myself regard providing the information for documenting sources in "full citations" to be a service to other users. Instead of complaining, people (like Doldrums and RWilliamKing) really should occasionally thank someone for doing all this work. I really don't have time to do this work anymore, and, as users are so unappreciative, I have really run out of time (and patience) with them at this point. They really need to follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. I find their (and others') rude comments truly offensive. [If one doesn't want answers to questions, then one should not ask them.] --NYScholar 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between having a discussion and creating your own Lewis Libby article in Talk:Lewis Libby, which is what you're doing.--RWilliamKing 14:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Please stop making unfounded charges. I repeat; I was responding to others' questions, including your own. I am not and have not been "creating [my] own Lewis Libby article in Talk:Lewis Libby".

I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I was providing sources requested by others for consideration, and that is clearly and repeatedly what I was "doing." I suggest that you cool it. See your own question about archiving, which I answered. Scroll up. I did not see any kind of polite reply there, either. Please review Wikipedia:Etiquette.... [deleted repeated sentences.] This is not a discussion forum about the subject or for leveling charges against other contributors; this is a place for making comments about improving the article on Lewis Libby; that is what I've been trying to do. My edits in the editing history (which now go back to about 23 September 2006 (in talk page) [1] and (in article) 25 January 2007) [2] were attempts to improve the article [as have been my later edits]. --NYScholar 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) [edited & updated. --NYScholar 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)]

When I have time, and/or when this current page gets too long [as per a message in editing mode], I may be moving all of the sources and supporting quotations that I suggested on this current talk page in reply to Doldrums query to a new talk page archive [in this article's talk page archive], after I or someone else creates it (doing so takes time), and I will be leaving a notice and link to the material here for anyone interested in finding them [the sources]. Scroll up to my reply with the link re: archiving of talk pages. --NYScholar 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) [edited; updated --NYScholar 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)]

The sources that I provided in response to the above query in this section are at least temporarily archived now in my own talk page archive 5: [3]. --NYScholar 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If consensus on this current talk page is to delete the information that I provided here from it because it takes up too much space, then the information is still accessible at my own talk page link for those who are interested in consulting it. (See archive 6 with the other user's comment about not "tampering" with the contents of the Libby talk page (now in archives 1-6) while the arbitration request is still under consideration. I have not deleted all this information that I have provided from this current talk page but just copied it so that it can still be consulted. As I have explained here, in my arbitration request statement, and in my own talk page, I really do not have time for doing further work on this article. I have simply provided the information about sources for the benefit of others who do want to work further on improving it. --NYScholar 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down man, 'cause it looks like what you are doing here is trying to build a complex legal case even though you 'won' this dispute long ago (when adding the correct categories is at base a very simple matter)! You certainly have gone a bit overboard on the TP here as others have stated, though personally I do appreciate the enthusiasm and thoroughness on your part. Rest assured, the relevant/factual/valid categories WILL be added to this article, as to keep them out is nothing more than censorship. Also, please note that certain editors are now trying to pull the same BS over at the Paul Wolfowitz and Ben Bernanke articles, among others. Also, did you ever read my response here? --Wassermann 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention...Category:Jewish American lawyers is now up for deletion (it'll soon be 'merged' in to Category:American lawyers) -- however, this doesn't mean that Category:Jewish American politicians and/or Category:Jewish Americans can't still be accurately added to the article along with the basic biographical information that you have so voluminously spelled out for us here. --Wassermann 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you on your own talk page at User talk:Wassermann#Please see Request for Arbitration; please see also the comment left on my talk page by User talk:Nbauman User talk:NYScholar#What's with these Jewish links? and additional sources relating to Libby in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 5. Thank you. ---NYScholar 17:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the incivility that I have encountered from some others (not Wassermann) regarding Lewis Libby (scroll up and see the talk page archives), and my disinclination to waste any more of my time with this matter, I will not be replying further on this talk page. These matters are currently in arbitration. I suggest that other "interested parties" also indicate their awareness of the formal arbitration request on the RFA [4] and contribute their requested "statements" about this long-standing editing content dispute (not me) there, following the recommended Wikipedia "procedure"; scroll up to #Resolving disputes for more information. --NYScholar 17:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated the link; I do not wish to devote any further time to this matter. --NYScholar 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)]

requesting unprotection

am requesting unprotection of this article. it was protected for "edit-warring" more than a month ago (April 19). Doldrums 13:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I advise that you not do that until the arbitration of the user in question is completed.--RWilliamKing 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First Name Irve

It is exceedingly annoying that anyone is saying that the name Irve is "up in the air." THAT IS HIS NAME. IRVE!!! His father was Irve and he is Irve, Jr. It is not a nickname!!! It is a name!! IRVE!!! That's how public records list his father!! That's how public records list him!! IRVE!!! That's his given name, from birth! Who cares if a childhood friend hems and haws about the name behind the "I." and then suggests "Irv[e]" and then "Irving"? He doesn't know! He doesn't have a clue! Because the name is "Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr." Go through the public records (AGAIN) and you will see (AGAIN) the guy's correct name!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxdfgzsegzsrr (talk • contribs)

That's great. Please provide the definitive links and the issue will be settled. Notmyrealname 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can search peoplefinders.com for Lewis Libby in Virginia and the record comes up listing Irve as an alternate name, age 57.