Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Well, I’m not from the right column, but reading the link it appears that Libby was not the source that the grand jury is looking for. Maybe. We still don’t know that.

We do know that Libby was a source for Miller, who didn’t write a story about it. It appears he was *one* source of the information, but there may have been others. This doesn’t exonerate Rove either, IMO.

Further questions need to be asked now and I’m glad we have this information. I am looking forward to the findings of the Grand Jury so we can find out if it was indeed a crime, who committed the crime, who the initial leak was or was it multiple and was it more common knowledge than we are being led to believe.

These are all things I am waiting to discover with the conclusion of the Grand Jury.

However, the one thing *I* don’t understand, to this day, is if they are willing to jail Miller for not giving up her source, why is Novak, the person who WROTE the article, not being forced to divulge his source?

Darn it Rhinehold, I was enjoying the silence! You could hear crickets chirping. :)

It is true that Libby may not be THE ONLY source. Rove would be nice, but Libby will do.

Good question about Novak. Cynical answer: Because he was the one who printed story.

Woody,

Where are all the Bush defenders?

If you want I’ll question your patriotism and blame your post for putting our soldiers in harms way, it just wouldn’t be the same though, they say it with so much conviction.

So now we know: It was the White House, in the person of “Scooter” Libby, who fingered Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

Excuse me? I’m from the LEFT, and this information does not means that Libby “fingered Valerie Plame.” All it means is the Judith Miller spoke with Libby. We know nothing about what they talked about.

I believe I’ll need a little more info before I go making any proclamations either way thanks.

All it means is the Judith Miller spoke with Libby. We know nothing about what they talked about.

Nothing? I don’t think it was about Mrs. Libby’s cookie recipe!

We know it had something to do with the Valerie Plame investigation, and it was relevant enough for Miller to be put in jail until she talked. I suppose it is possible that Libby is actually a “deep throat” figure who identified the real source. But the most parsimonious explanation, based on what we know, is that Libby was one of the people peddling the Plame story. His lawyer may be convinced that it wasn’t a crime. The truth will out.

I’m from the right. What does this prove. Scooter should be fired and maybe put in jail. Next.

I mean, seriously, who cares other than on that particular. The real mystery is why did the left fight so hard for every minor scandal in Clinton’s administration, instead of just saying the guilty should be prosecuted and the country should move on. There’s no cult of personality among the true right; if Bush is found to have committed a felony, like Clinton’s perjury, I’d gladly see him quit, be impeached, and all the rest. Why does this obvious necesity of cutting losses escape the left and why do they assume the right thinks and acts the same way.

Delay’s a bit different. The DA in Austin is out of control and there is little evidence Delay made any criminal decisions with his PAC or that the PAC was under his day to day control. In cases like that, PACs and others really do rely on legal advice about what they can and can’t do. The Austin DA, Earle, simply seems to think that if PAC acts to loophole loopholes its “bad” motives should amount for something. That’s not how the law works, and the criminal law most especially.

Roach,

Your double standard between paragraph 2 and 3 is amazing. Why not let justice take its course in Delay’s case? If he’s innocent, he’ll go free.

I really don’t understand what you are saying with “why did the left fight so hard for every minor scandal in Clinton’s administration?” I think the question is why did the Right fight so hard to promote them, being that they were, um, minor.

Here we go again.
‘What we did wasn’t right BUT what you did was worse.’
Can’t we just wait for the Blue Dress before claiming a victory?
‘Wish it was Rove but Libby will do ….’
Even if Rove has absolutely nothing to do with it his name has to be injected into the dialogue. Just in case.
It’s like the Hatfields and McCoys. No one can really recall what started the fight but neither side is willing to end it.

Don’t expect us to answer your loaded questions.

Roach,

The Austin DA out of control? Kind of a ludicrous statment. That DA has brought charges against 15 politicians during his career. 11 of them are Democrats and 4 are Republicans. Seems to be a non political charge and if anyone is out of control then it is Delay.

There is nothing to dispute here. In the “Liberal” system of determining guilt all you have to do is prove (or have it on good authority) that one person passed another on the street.

His or her guilt becomes immediately cast in stone and publicized. The second step of course is to immediately discredit not only everything that person has done but, that which everyone he/she knows has done.

Finally, blast President Bush for allowing it to happen.

The trouble here is that the right has taken its cue from the propaganda that the Nixon Whitehouse spewed trying to defend itself from charges relating to its offenses.

Fact of the matter is, this is made the Right fertile ground for corrupt behavior. Why straighten up an fly right when there are always liberals to blame?

DeLay’s associates got convicted in this mess, so it’s a bit late to argue that it’s purely in the realm of fevered partisan imagination. Besides, even the worst partisan would not risk going after this big a fish in the pond unless they thought there was a good chance of catching it.

As for Rove, the facts, as laid out, demonstrate that Rove knew he was revealing classified information and that his White House non-disclosure agreement forbids it, even when its inadvertant. The information he gave was identifying information, even if it didn’t mention Plame by name. It takes a boatload of excuses and revisionist interpretation to conclude that Rove did not knowingly leak classified information.

I can understand why the Republicans don’t want to believe this. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not learning the lesson many like my self learned with Clinton: Politicians can and will lie to their supporters to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Do you guys want to be the dupes of these politicians, or the folks in control? Your choice.

Woody:
“Rove would be nice, but Libby will do.”

I think these two traitors were both in on it. We know Rove blabbed, via Cooper. Now Libby, to Miller.

I seriously doubt the investigation of Tom Delay is partisan. Even if it is so what? This is a page right out of the Republican’s own playbook. The republicans had not one concern about the partisanship that drove the Whitewater investigation and spent over $80M only to find out that two adults committed adultery and one guy lied about it under oath.

Delay has repeatedly been brought forward on ethics violations by his own party. The guy is dirty and thinks he doesn’t have to play by the rules. If he’s found to be guilty, good riddance.

I didn’t say Earle was a partisan hack, though he might be, I said he was out of control. He may well have been out of control in the case of those democrats as well. His war against the TAB and its donors is truly unconscionable.

In particular, with respect to the Texas Association of Business, his indictments—which I’ve read in full—misstate the law and ignore the long line of precedents that (1) distinguish issue ads from “express advocacy and (2) do not prohibit coordination by PACs and non-PACs under TX law. This kind of pushing the envelope in the realm of criminal law is inappropriate and unethical; if there is ambiguity or grey area it should be construed by the coruts in favor of the accused and prosecutors should exercise their discretion accordingly.

I also don’t see why my Delay comments are inappropriate. I don’t think a crime happened there, but I agree the process should be allowed to take its course. But one way for it to take its course is for us, as outsiders, to recognize that the prosecutor is a bit of a nutball who is misuing the grand jury and indictment processes in a way not mandated by the text of the Texas Election Code, which I also have read in full.

I do not see why he is out of control. Delay has chastised 4 times by the house ethics committee and also was rebuked by them once in private. He has shown several attempts to circumvent applicable laws so why should it surprise anyone that he is indicted.
As for your comments that the indictments misuse the law - on one hand we have a DA who has decades of experince versus an internet poster. Does not seem like much of a contest in the legal arena. He should go for Delay, or TAB, or any other entity or person who violates Texas law.

Let me see…

Ken Starr cost the taxpayers 87 million to investigate Clinton’s Whitewater dealings and came up with, nothing; (actually the Clintons lost a small fortune but that Clinton was innocent was a one line article on page 48);
Investigated charges that the Clinton Administration had people killed, still nothing;
that he asked State Troopers to lie for him, nothing here either.
That Clinton lied about getting oral sex from an intern… lets impeach him. Lets also forget that the economy was the strongest its ever been, that unemployment was at an all time low, that foriegn relations were strong and that the rich were still rich and the poor and middle class were also moving up.

The Republicans stood on the steps of the Senate and Newt Gingreich spoke into the cameras and said, the Republicans would sign a contract with America to bring back dignity, honor and truth to its people. The American people believe this and the Republicans take control of both houses of Congress, the Senate and the White House. Lets see how they’ve done.

Ronnie Earl indicts a corrupt politician for laundering money to get Republicans in office, nothing here? Lets forget that Ronnie Earl has prosecuted 12 Democrats and three Republicans but Ronnie Earl is a Partisan prosecutor and his motives are political, let us also forget the law was broken;
Lets forget that George W Bush goes AWOL from the military, nothing here?
George Bush lies to the American people, Congress, the Senate, the UN about WMDs, starts an illegal war and thousands of our soldiers plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed and that Saddam did not send terrorists to crash planes into the twin towers and the pentagon, nothing here? Lets forget that the mother of any soldier killed that questions why her child died must be a nut.
Scutter Libby reveals the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative and risks the lives of her and her associates, nothing here? Lets forget the law was broken and that Scutter Libby is guilty of Treason. Nothing here?
Lets forget that George W Bush appointed someone with absolutely no experience running FEMA (as well as most of his appointments) and because of his incompetence thousands died. Nothing here?

What will it take… do you have to be personally affected? Does someone in your family have to die before you wake up and realize that George W Bush is even too incompetent to run a dairy queen?

Pat:

What a great list of complaints and gripes. Well done. None of it, other than the brief mention of Ronnie Earl, has anything to do with the topic. But thanks for the memories.

Lets forget that Ronnie Earl has prosecuted 12 Democrats and three Republicans but Ronnie Earl is a Partisan prosecutor and his motives are political, let us also forget the law was broken;

I don’t know Ronnie Earl from a hole in the wall, but I do know that in America a person is innocent until proven guilty. Your last sentence says that a law was broken, as if that has been factually proven in court. Not so. And since we are talking about DeLay and laws being broken, you are proclaiming that he broke the law. Again, not proven.

If proven, kick the guy out. Punish him as the law allows. But by all means, lets wait until he’s actually convicted or acquitted to judge his innocence or guilt.

It was proven that Saddam didn’t have WMDs and that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld lied… and thousands died.

It’s a fact George W Bush was AWOL.

Its also a fact that Bush’s appointee’s incompetence cost hundreds of lives in LA…

The guilty don’t always go to prison… especially in this administration.

Oh I’m sorry, I forgot that army private that single handedly masterminded the torcher of all those abu garab prisioners.

Roach,

You said “the prosecutor is a bit of a nutball”.
Prove it.

Roach-
What’s your background? If you’re a lawyer yourself, then I might trust your analysis more. I would then ask you, though, whether you were voicing your own opinion, or that of the courts. I would consider such distinctions important to judging the merits of your claims that Earle is out of control.

Aside from that, I find it a boring thing for a Republican to tell me. It’s such an overused defense it’s not funny. Whenever some Republican gets caught, they label the prosecutor or investigator a raging liberal, and either imply or state outright that it’s just partisan politics.

In short, it’s a meaningless accusation unless you can provide solid evidence for it. As for pushing ambiguity or grey areas in favor of the accused, I’m not so sure people would appreciate that. That’s what we call loopholes and technicalities.

Joe-
Innocent until proven guilty, right. That doesn’t mean the person is not under suspicion, or else there wouldn’t be a trial. Fact of the matter is, people can and will make up their minds about a case, even in a society where the presumption is for innocence.

Besides, the presumption of innocence only means that it’s guilt that must be proved. After all the facts, it must be clear to you that a line was a approached, if not stepped over. If were presuming innocence here, I would not be denying the whole thing, or telling people they could form no opinions, I would be asking myself what reasonable doubt could their exist that his actions were criminal.

Additionally, conviction is not a prerequisite for determining that somebody has broken the law, but rather for punishing them for that offense. Not all people who commit crimes, even provable ones, see trial. Legal technicalities, deals, and the prosecutor’s discretion are among the things that keep a person who has provably broken a law from being convicted.

We must treat conviction as a special kind of proof, and the presumption of innocence as part of it. It is specifically geared towards our government’s actions in prosecuting crimes and misdemeanors.

You just want people not to come to a certain conclusion, given evidence you know looks bad. Well, as honest as your desire is, I think it’s not at all bad for people to come to such conclusions. The key remains whether our government can deprive us of life liberty or property by that standard.

I do hope that people take some measure of skepticism. I do prefer that people elaborate with facts when they make such claims. But I’ve seen enough facts to figure that there’s a strong likelihood that DeLay, Rove, and Libby are guilty of their offenses. Am I missing some facts? Maybe I am. Hopefully, if I am wrong, facts will come to my attention to correct me.

To say that someone is innocent until proven guilty is one thing. But we’re not even at that point.

Nobody has even been accused of anything yet.

Stephen says, “Innocent until proven guilty, right. That doesn’t mean the person is not under suspicion, or else there wouldn’t be a trial.”

True enough. And there isn’t a trial.

But not only is there no trial and no one standing accused, it hasn’t even been definitely established that anyTHING occurred to accuse anyBODY of.

In other words, the cart is about two hundred miles in front of the horse here.

Sanger-
Rove hasn’t been indicted, true enough, but Judith Miller just made a command performance at Grand Jury Hall That may be the last part of the investigation before indictments start coming down.

Besides, if you cared to read a few more paragraphs besides the one you quote, you would probably have figured out by now that I was saying that the necessary formal process of the Court system operates under different rules than that of society, and that we are free to make up our minds about the evidence as we please, as private citizens.

Oh, and don’t forget, Tom DeLay was indicted on conspiracy Charges just a couple days ago. That counts as somebody being accused of something, right?

Your comments are not justified by the evidence in the article you supplied.

Others have pointed out the details. Suffice to say, Libby is a source, but we don’t know exactly for what. We also don’t what he said or what was known before.

We do know that he released Miller from her confidentiality a long time ago. If that was the only thing preventing her from talking, she didn’t need to keep silent. We also know that Libby is cooperating with the investigation and we know that the investigation will be over soon and we will have more and better information.

The left is jumping on this before all the facts are known in an attempt to spin the result. If Libby broke the law, he should be appropriately punished. “IF” is the important word. No reason for me or anyone else to defend anything.

This is typical of the liberal method. We see lots of fury and hear a lot of noise. But when everything clears, nothing is really proven.

Have fun until the facts come out. I won’t have trouble with the outcome because I believe in the truth. You guys don’t worry as much about that, since you already have your story ready.

Sanger- Rove hasn’t been indicted, true enough, but Judith Miller just made a command performance at Grand Jury Hall

It’s interesting, I think, that you interject Rove into this even when Judith Miller’s testimony had to do with Libby—in fact, according to the deal she struck with Fitgerald, entirely to do with Libby. It shows your single-minded desire to pin this on one predetermined individual even when the facts point elsewhere.

I’ve been saying for two months that if there was a crime here (still a big if) and if someone in the White House was guilty of it (another if) that the evidence pointed to Libby.

If I were a betting man, I would say that the target at this point is probably NOT Libby, however, since Judith Miller’s deal and the conditions under which she was allowed to make it—imposed by BOTH Libby and the investigator—suggests that Libby doesn’t consider himself the target.

For a bunch of reasons, I would wager (if I were a betting man) that the target is somebody in the CIA, perhaps Tenet or someone whose name we don’t even know yet. Perhaps even Joe Wilson—though it doesn’t look as likely now as it once did.

Stephen:

I’ll accept your premise from you, since you’ve reasoned it out quite well, as I’d have expected from you. I dont have problems with people reaching opinions about someone without the benefit of all the facts or a trial. We all do that. We’ve all thought about whether OJ was guilty or talked about whether Michael Jackson was going to be convicted etc.

The problem is as Jack mentioned though. Many people who simply jump to a conclusion before any reasonable review of the facts. It’s the equivalent of adding 1+1 and coming up with 18. Look at Woody’s initial comments to see how he has reached a conclusion that is not logically or factually reachable. (” So now we know: It was the White House, in the person of “Scooter” Libby, who fingered Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.”)

The incorrect conclusions, or at least incomplete conclusions, then often get trumpeted around as if they are fact. More and more people hear them, think they are factual, and begin to believe them. This is how things like the Dan Rather memos happen…because people WANT to believe something enough to overlook the nagging questions of whether enough facts are present to reach the conclusion.

Stephen, I want to commend you for not doing that. While we view the world very differently, I find you to be a well intentioned, intelligent and reasonable sort. While you often reach different conclusions than I do from the same set of facts, I can usually see the thought process that you use to do so. Not jumping to conclusions means thinking, and too many out there simply don’t do that enough to avoid the knee jerk conclusion leaps.

Jack-
I don’t want to be cliched, but that sounds more like your party’s Whitewater investigation. There’s actually a good chance that Libby and Rove will face some indictable charges. After all, you have that Time Reporter Cooper testifying under oath that Karl Rove told him that the information he was giving him was going to be declassified, and then saying he shouldn’t have told him that. At the very least, we can say he knowingly divulged classified information. Also, FBI agents said that he may have kept things from them that he told the Grand Jury- that could lead to obstruction of justice charges.

You are right if you say that this picture might be incomplete, but keep in mind that such incompleteness throws uncertainty in your direction as well, and your folks have not been as lucky in predicting the way these investigations have developed.

Sanger-
What you have to understand was that Miller’s command performance was the last roadblock to the conclusion of the investigation, from what I hear. With her testimony, limited or not, the rest of the other feet have their chance to drop.

Joe-
I would prefer that people add up the facts before coming to their conclusions. Your side must also do this, though, and not just willingly participate in your leader’s damage control. It would be harder, I think, to spread the blame for the malfeasances of the invididual members of your party so wide, if you were willing to scrutinize and police your own with more fervor.

Jack, Sanger, et al,

Yes, I did jump the gun by saying that Libby was the source for the leak. I still think it is the most parsimonious explanation of the facts.

I am not the only one jumping the gun, however. First of all, I did NOT claim that Libby committed a crime. It is possible that the leaker did not commit a crime. So let’s put it this way: can we agree that IF (IF!) he identified Plame as a covert CIA agent to punish Joe Wilson, then that would be a very bad thing?

Secondly, the theory that Miller was not protecting Libby but a SECOND source is pretty fantastic, and directly contradicts her own statements. We can sit here and invent additional people all day.

Finally, I am amused by this explanation of “the liberal method”. I thought liberals were the supposed to the ones who whine about due process when everyone with “common sense” knows the guy is guilty as hell. I don’t even know what “liberal” means to you guys any more…

Stephen,

Your example of Whitewater illustrates how the Right has not evenly remoted practiced what posters are preaching right now. The Whitewater investigation wasn’t over until the end of the Clinton administration. Obviously, Clinton’s critics didn’t “wait until he was convicted or acquitted”, as JOB suggests.

Stephen

They don’t want to catch Delay just make him step down for now because unlike Democrat’s Republican’s have rules to see this happens.

This DA is outa control when he power brokers with felonies for payoffs to his personal favorite Quasi charities for dropped charges, a little bit of a stretch (hypocritical) for years and only 1 count of conspiracy. Please it’s a joke. Who indictes this DA on doing the very thing he claims Delay did. He did give 75k to the national Democratic machine only to have them give it back to congressional races in TX.

As for Plame meaningless and grandstanding she had been inactive for over five years. She was outa the loop with no knowledge of current events as pertaining to the CIA. This does not release him (Libby) from his actions, Fire him do the investigation and he’ll walk away because there is a five year statute for releasing a CIA operatives name.

Let’s not forget there have been a few Democrat’s who where sentenced not to ong ago for some similar types of infractions. To claim it’s all Republicans is a ssttrreettcchh!

AP article:
Questions and Answers on CIA Leak Case

Stephen, Woody et al

I didn’t like the Whitewater investigation either and, BTW, I don’t care for the continuing Cisneros saga.

The government investigates too much and we seek to criminalize political disagreements. It makes us all cynical.

I read about Miller today in the Washington Post. Everything Libby did sounds reasonable. On their first meeting, Miller asked why the Administration would send someone like Wilson in the first place (a reasonable question given his known political leanings and only general qualifications for the specific job) Libby said he thought it was a CIA thing and would try to find out. In the second interview, he said that Wilson got the job because of his wife. He evidently didn’t even know her name or that she was under cover. Miller never wrote a story. It doesn’t sound like much of a story and I doubt if any indictments will come of it.

Big deal. Indiscretion, or at worst a technicality that a reasonable person would not pursue. You got plenty of nothing. Put this on the list of your urban legends. You can talk about it in the context of the Ohio voting when you get together in your local covens.

Jack, this guy worked for his father. So did Richard Clarke for that matter. Hell, Wilson stared down Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and Richard Clarke was in the room with Dick Cheney and others when King Fahd gave permission for our forces to base themselves in Saudi Arabia.

This is the big lie, and I do mean lie, about Bush’s opponents. Everything is painted in the light of political operations by the liberals against this president. That’s plays well for the base, and it certainly distracts from the objectively objectionable aspects of this administration’s policies, but many of these allegations of political chicanery just aren’t true. Fact of the matter is, Bush has alienated and offended moderates and centrists to go along with us who are farther on the left.

You guys have got to start asking the next questions in these matters: are the charges true? Even if there is a political taint to the motivation for the investigation, what matters most to you and I as citizens whose lives are affected by the policies and actions of this government is what really was done.

Anything less, and we encourage a dangerous lack of good judgment in our leaders, and excessive use of their power for their own ends. We cannot afford to passively accept ad hominem arguments of any type as reason to oppose indictments and investigations, because the people who use these arguments don’t always tell us everything, and often lie to us on purpose.

After all, the Republicans were right about one thing: The president did have an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Now, I hope most investigations take a higher road, and deal with body parts farther north of the belt, but take it from me, a politician you know and love can lie to you, and these people are capable of doing some pretty repulsive things. Our job here is to give them a moments pause before they go and do something stupid in our name.

Jack,

Thanks for pointing out the WP article, because it verifies that I was correct!!! Libby identified Valerie Plame (=Joe Wilson’s wife) as working at the CIA. This doesn’t prove that he committed a crime, but it does prove that he did what I said he did.

Are you big enough to admit that I was right, even if I was guessing to a certain degree?

Woody

I don’t think it matters. He didn’t evidently know her name, he didn’t know she was officially under cover and he didn’t do it to punish Wilson, rather he was just trying to explain an evident anomaly in why someone like Wilson was chosen for the job.

I don’t have any trouble with the technicality that he identified her, or more precisely provided sufficient information to allow someone else to identify her. I don’t think it takes a “big man” to admit it. I am only looking for the truth. It was an indiscretion, but I seriously doubt if it was illegal under the statue and do not believe it was unethical given what Libby knew and didn’t know about Plame’s status. What we seem to have is clear evidence that there WAS NOT a conspiracy.

I wrote “If Libby broke the law, he should be appropriately punished.” It looks more and more like he didn’t.

The more interesting line of inquiry is what sort of corruption in the CIA allowed this nepotism to take place? And did Plame and Wilson have a political agenda going in?

Briefly, for those who care, I am a lawyer. I have read the major recent TX Supreme Court decision on the Texas Election Code, the Indictment of the TAB, Buckley v. Valeo, Christian Coalition, and the recent decision upholding in pat McCain Feingold.

There is little remedy for prosecutorial abuse other than a failure to return guilty verdicts. The last time Earle indicted Delay he balked on trial day and decided not to prosecute. I wouldn’t be shocked if that plays out this time. On the other hand, if DeLay is found guilty and that judgment survives appeal, then I guess he probably was guilty. I think, though, it will be deep-sixed before that on summary judgment or on some other basis due to Earle’s misreading of relevant first amendment decisions and TX Supreme Court decisions involving the TX Election Code.

You don’t have to take my word for it, but look at these cases, the indictments, etc. Time will tell if I’m right in the end. I wish I had all of this research handy, but I don’t, though all of these sources are online. I had to do research in this area in law school and as a law clerk to a federal judge, so I know a bit of what I speak. I have to say, the appeals to authority as an argument are what is boring. We’re all opinionated people. That doesn’t mean we’re liars or biased. You obviously know I speak from a certain point of view. If you mean to disprove me, do so. Don’t just vaguely hint that everything I’m saying is not worth listening too. I haven’t.

Libby had an opportunity. He, Rove, and Stephen Hadley (I think he’s now National Security Advisor, could be wrong) worked on the damage control response to the Wilson Revelation.

This gives them the opportunity, despite Rove’s absence from the trip, to have seen documents related to the Niger trip, and relating to the forged Yellowcake documents.

Among those is an INR document that names Valerie Plame. That document marks her association with the CIA as secret. If they ever had that document in their position then they knew that the CIA wanted the information kept quiet, and they knew exactly who they were talking about.

Roach-
When somebody comes along and starts posting opinions about legal matters, it is not illegitimate to ask their authority on the matter, as it is a technical field. I have a lawyer for a brother, so I have a taste of the complexity of the law from his perspective.

Time will tell, indeed.

One substantive question here, because I’m not sure you’ve addressed this in particular: have you read the indictment of Tom DeLay itself? You mentioned all the other examples, but what about this case itself? We may assume he’s making the same arguments in the same context, but is he? If you could clear up your direct familiarity with the case, that may further knock down objections to your reading of the case.

Post-Postscript(10/1): According to the today’s Washington Post, “..Libby told Miller that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, the sources said.” Anyone care to acknowledge that my initial statement, however much of a reach it was, was substantially correct?

Substantially correct on the basis of a single selectively quoted phrase taken from a much larger article? You didn’t even quote the whole sentence or provide a link to this article, the one you quote from, so we could get the whole picture.

The unnamed sources from the exact same article also say that Miller’s testimony squares with Libby’s own about their conversations and that “Libby never knew Plame’s name or that she was a covert operative.” The source (or sources) also say that “her testimony does not implicate Libby as intentionally and knowingly identifying Plame.”

At the very least, your one cherry-picked phrase doesn’t even come close to proving your orginal claim that Libby is obviously “indefensible.” The truth right now seems to be unknowable.

Jack-
I believe he was an ambassador there, spoke the language, knew some folks in the community. As a diplomat, he had good security clearance as well, so he could be trusted. Additionally, he was only paid expenses and nothing else to go to one of the worst third-world hellholes in Africa. I think the idea with nepotism is that an unqualified hack gets put in because they’re family.

As for Plame’s identity, she was NOC, so finding out she was CIA would have taken more than the usual asking of questions. You’d practically have to know her status as NOC, or at least as a secret agent, in order to know that she was CIA. Even a confirmation of her as CIA to an uncleared individual would constitute a leak.

So how does this work? How does he casually find out she’s CIA without finding out the CIA’s keeping that secret? NOC agents tend to be kept so secret that under most circumstances, not even the White House knows them. How does Libby find out? If it’s another administration official, what of them? If it’s a reporter, how did he or she get the information? If Libby read the INR document, how could he not know that even confirming her identity was forbidden?

The Republican defense for these people is founded on ignorance of the law, the situation, and its implications.

Sanger,

I guess I can’t win for losing. I said that Libby “fingered”, that is identified, Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. People jumped all over me, said I was jumping the gun, compared me to Dan Rather, said they could have chatted about something else. But, like Joe Wilson, I was right (at least according to the WP sources).

I can’t believe you guys keep trotting out the asinine argument that Libby didn’t identify her by name. How many wives does Joe Wilson have? I wouldn’t accept that kind of BS from a two-year-old. That is even dumber than Clinton saying that he didn’t think he was having sex. It isn’t even logical. Joe Wilson’s wife = Valerie Plame. End of story.

One interesting twist in the DeLay case is that Democratic committees in Texas were engaged in the exact same practice at the same time.

This is another reason why it’s odd that only members of the Republican one that DeLay was involved in have been indicted.

In fact, if you look at the numbers, availabe here you see that Democrats actually shuffled far more of this soft money than Republicans did.

In any case, I have read the indictment of DeLay, and nowhere does it cite any evidence whatsoever suggesting that DeLay was behind or even remotely involved in the soft money transfers by the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC.

According to Earl, the bare fact that DeLay was even assoicated with an organization which was engaged in shuffling soft money (as Democrats were as well)is worthy of indictment.

If Earle or the grand jury has anything connecting DeLay to these money transfers—money transfers that very well be techincally legal—it is NOT in the indictment, which is very odd. An indictment, after all, is supposed to tell the accused what he’s being accused of.

This is a classic case of guilt by association. Association with something, however, which does not appear to be illegal.

Wilson, the reason people jump all over you is because even when defending your positions you say things like you just did now: “I guess I can’t win for losing. I said that Libby “fingered”, that is identified, Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.”

Let’s slow down for a second and look at that carefully. Nothing you’ve linked to or even mentioned indicates that Libby said Plame was “a CIA agent” but you persist in just tossing that out as though it’s an established fact.

This isn’t just semantics—it’s a crucial point. Saying that someone works for the CIA is simply not the same thing at all as saying they are an agent. Most of the people who work for the CIA are NOT agents. If Libby—or anyone else said she worked at the CIA without knowing whe was an agent—then the leak was unintentional and therefore not illegal (since the pertinent law specificaly reguires intention in this case).

And the reason for this accidental leak seems pretty obvious. When Plame helped to arrange Wilson’s Niger trip, she was NOT functioning in her capacity as an agent but as an adminstrator. Anyone who learned of her involvement in sending Wilson would assume—with good reason—that she was an adminstrator. In which case it would be okay to identify her.

When it’s all said and done, you find no plot to do much of anything except to explain a strange situation.

As I have written previously, lefties should be careful what they wish for. If someone can get in legal trouble for doing something like Libby may have done, it would be possible to get almost anyone you wanted.

Stephen

Wilson was not a logical choice to send to Niger. Many people speak French and have local contacts. We have people on the ground who have more current contacts and more specific expertise. It doesn’t make sense on the surface to send someone like Wilson. It requires explanation. It was not a very big deal, as indicated by the fact that Miller didn’t even bother to write an article about it.

I won’t drag out this pointless argument any more than necessary, but not once have I said that Libby broke the law. If you want to say that the REAL question is criminal liability, then you may be right.

At the very least, it was negligent of him to reveal potentially classified information to a reporter. I wish you guys would hold high-level government officials to the same standards you expect from bloggers. I need to be careful not to write “CIA agent” on a website, but if Libby has a brain cramp and identifies a covert agent, it’s no big deal. Give me a break.

FEC: Nancy Pelosi’s PACs Broke the Law

Two political action committees linked to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been charged with attempting to circumvent to legal limits on campaign giving, the Federal Election Commission has ruled.

According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.

The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:”The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution.”
Mr. DeLay, by then under investigation for his own campaign finance problems, reacted sharply to the news about Pelosi’s campaign finance irregularities, saying: “She has violated the law. It’s in the facts.”
Pelosi operated two PACs: Team Majority and PAC to the Future.

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Team Majority reported 16 contributions of $5,000 each from donors who had already given the maximum to Pelosi’s other PAC. Five of the donors gave to both PACs on the same day.

Rather than referring the case to the Justice Department for prosecution, however, the FEC allowed Pelosi’s two committees to negotiate “conciliation agreements” under which they were fined a total of $21,000.

Yep that’s right it’s only REPUBLICAN’s

Sanger-
If you shoot somebody dead, and I do the same, does that mean you’re not guilty of murder? Don’t hand me this logic. All it does is justify your party’s mistakes by mine.

Second, it wasn’t the shuffling of soft money, but of corporate money in particular. There’s a difference under Texas law.

Third, conspiracy charges are much looser. To Wit:

Austin American-Statesman

Filing conspiracy charges is generally to the prosecutor’s advantage, said George Dix, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in criminal law.

The burden of proof can be easier to meet — showing that a defendant agreed to criminal activity instead of proving “the elements of a crime, set out 1-2-3,” Dix said.

“There is less likely to be problems of technical proofs, of showing the technical requirements of a crime.”

The rules of evidence are looser as well. Normally, a statement is admissible in trial only if uttered by the defendant, in this case DeLay. But in a conspiracy trial, statements by anybody declared a co-conspirator may be introduced, Dix said.

“It’s possible something Ellis said out of court might be used not only against him but Mr. DeLay,” Dix said. “There is one exception to the hearsay rule: for statements made by co-conspirators.”

It can be proved with this own words, given to the Houston Chronicle that he was the creator, advisor and fundraiser of the group. Other evidence indicates that he handled at least one of the corporate checks himself.

The Indictment is indeed short, but that doesn’t mean the case itself is weak. I’d just like to quote what the grand jury foreman had to say about all this:

“I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members,” Gibson said.

The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence.

“It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us,” Gibson said.

[…]

Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay.

“We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn’t feel there was sufficient evidence,” said Gibson.

The evidence is there to prove Delay was involved in wrongdoing and also prove that he and his fellow grand jurors acted independent of political influence, Gibson said.

“It wasn’t Mr. Earle that indicted the man. It was the 12 members of the grand jury,” Gibson said.

Gibson is a former sheriff’s deputy and a former investigator for what is now the Texas Department of Insurance.

This is what makes dealing with the Republican’s behavior the last few years so frustrating. Everything’s political. Everything’s a tissue of lies. Never mind that the people speaking up against DeLay, and others in the party are often moderates and even conservatives themselves. Loyalty to men here has outstripped loyalty to principles, and it shows in how these things are always played as partisan attacks. Can’t anybody get mad about corruption, about incompetence in policy?

It just seems to me that were I in the Republican’s position right now, I would feel disgusted with my leaders.

As for your argument about fingering her as a CIA agent, I find the argument invalid. The whole point about being NOC, is that you do not have the diplomatic cover that would raise red flags if you went snooping around. You are known by a cover story that essentially isolates you from connection to the agency. If you are caught, you aren’t brought back in some exchange, you are typically disavowed.

Because she was NOC, even the knowledge that she worked for the CIA was damaging to operations she was engaged in. Because of that every interaction she had has probably now been scrutinized by intelligence agencies for the relevant government, sources have likely been endangered, and other NOC agents who were known associates are now suspect, or worse, caught.

The crucial point with a NOC agent is knowledge of their association with the intelligence field, not knowledge that she was an agent. That could be inferred by her heretofore unknown association with the agency.

Additionally, your argument that she was merely functioning as an administration is unsound. The evidence, in this case an INR memo circulated among White House Staff, specifically marks paragraphs indicating her identity as secret, an indication done with an (s). If Libby or Rove saw this paragraph, he not only was obliged to keep it secret, but also knowledgeable that it’s contents were to be kept in the strictest of confidence at the agency’s request.

There are few ways to be given this information, and not be aware of its classified origin. You can make the reporter excuse, but that still begs the question: where did the reporter find the information?

Jack-
More current contacts and more specific expertise? He was being sent to inquire after some documents, not unravel a dark conspiracy. Moreover, he probably wasn’t so badly out of date

Ambassador Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998. In that capacity he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, He was one of the principal architecs of President Clinton’s historic trip to Africa in March 1998.

I think you’re just nitpicking here. It was one simple assignment, and he knew who to talk to. Are there many people like that? A few. But how many can you call up at a moment’s notice? The explanation was already there: Plame knew here husband could do this on short notice, and it would probably be more discreet to ask him, rather than go all about town looking for other candidates. This wasn’t the awarding of a No-Bid contract, or a lucrative job.

This business of charging Nepotism is a talking point, Jack. This is the problem with you Republicans: you’re taking these talking points as the only points of reference, not moderating them with outside perspectives. I always try to do that, because I am painfully aware of how easy it is to manipulate people with a story. I don’t know how many times I’ve gotten disturbed by some revelation on the Red Column, only the research the damn thing and find out that somebody just bought a talking point and missed reams of information painting a different picture. It’s happened so often that I’ve come to distrust these revelations on sight. This is what makes me wary of Fox News and other conservative news organizations, and what distresses me about things like Judith Miller’s reporting on WMDs in the NYT.

A Story can be be well composed, be replete with facts, and yet give a false impression of the world. Language requires approximation. We protect information from the inaccuracies and imprecisions that this approximation brings by the way we organize the internal logic and feel of the story. We qualify certain statements, organize facts, arrange frameworks of outside context that people can confirm the truth of the story by.

Why does it strike you as irregular that a man cleared for such intelligence work, deeply familiar with the region, known to a trusted asset, and having contacts in the government be chosen for this assignment? Because nothing of this implies any gain, the issue of Nepotism is largely irrelevant. The whole problem with that is gain, and what did he get out of this?

CAD-
I’m not content with such behavior. Even as you intend to embarrass Democrats with this stuff (it should embarrass us), you don’t seem embarrassed to see these things go on with your party. By making this argument, you’re implicitly implying that we’re no better, and that for this reason, we should cease looking into these things.

It’s an invalid argument, though. Both sides have standards they must live up to, standards that exist for good reasons. To let those standards diminish or be applied in an imbalanced fashion would be blow to either party’s integrity. A legitimate issue exists as to whether Democrats would be the first to concede these problems within their own organization, but then, that’s why we have more than one party in this country- one side keeps the other side honest. At least, that’s the intention.

If I can face the possibility of questionable activity for my leaders, how about you with yours?

By the way, I think you quoted that whole Newsmax article. Please be aware that Watchblog takes a dim view of that kind of quotation, as it opens up a can of worms with copyright issues. Additionally, you deprived many of us of the opportunity to know your source and judge it, fairly or unfairly. We deserve a more transparent citation than that.

Stephen

I didn’t know that nepotism was a talking point. It just makes sense.

Four years is a fairly long time in international politics and he was not someone on the ground. He was a Washington based official. The kind of mission he was on did not require his particular expertise. A call to the local station chief or someone in the State Department would have been more logical.

Beyond that, we are talking about the perception. He may have been qualified, but he was not best qualified and not a logical choice given his well-known connections with the Democrats. You could argue that the Administration chose him BECAUSE he was an opponent, but if Miller found out that was not the case, she would be justified in wondering why they chose this guy.

The bottom line is I don’t find anything that is unreasonable or unethical about what Libby is supposed to have done or Miller and neither will authorities (I predict). That is why the Dems are making such a big deal of this now, because they know there will be nothing later and they hope to spin while they still can.

Jack-
Why does it make sense? There are many times in life when we call on people we know and trust to do us favors. We weren’t talking a full-time job here, but a one time mission of limited scope, one where there was little material benefit going Wilson’s way.

You keep on throwing the discussion over to nepotism, and keep on avoiding the question of how people got this sensitive information. Moreover, you’re arguing this line that informing people of her CIA connection was not a crime, though in fact somebody had to commit a crime and blab for their to be any revelation at all. The fact of the matter was that her NOC status was supposed to be information that even the White House would be rarely privy to. That’s why you have White House officials claiming they heard it from reporters. They’re saying, this wasn’t a secret when I heard them say it, or when I said it.

It’s a distraction, all of it. It comes down to this: few people knew that Plame was NOC to begin with, not even her classmates at the CIA training facility, who saw her, but only knew her by a first name and an intitial. This was not information you could get running into somebody on the street, or at least it shouldn’t have been.

Somebody blabbed. There’s no good evidence that the Wilsons were anything but scrupulous about maintaining her cover. The White House was informed of her status. Somebody told. That somebody is guilty of a crime.

You’re too busy trying to argue they deserve to have this crime committed against them to realize that exactly you are defending: compromised security. A truly disciplined White House would never had leaked classified information, would not even confirm it. What if the next person they purposefully or inadvertantly out is the person who could have learned al-Qaeda’s plans?

Should politics determine the right and wrong of all things?

It is not surprising that the guy’s wife would choose someone she trusted. There would be no reason for the institution to do the same. I mean, does it really make sense for the CIA to send a former State Dept employee who is a known opponent of the policy? That is why it would require explanation. That his wife worked there would be an explanation, whether it is nepotism or not.

This does not necessarily “blame” Wilson or Plame. But it does explain the actions of someone like Libby and it doesn’t require any malevolence.

Jack-
The CIA shouldn’t pick people they trust?

As for being opposed to the policy, the question is, what was Wilson’s position on Iraq in Feb. 2002? Was there even mention of a war there at that early date?

Do recall that this is the guy who stood up to Saddam to save hundreds of people from becoming his human shields.

It saddens me that you make agreement with a policy a prerequisite for doing work for the government. Aren’t these people supposed to have more than one course of action available to our leaders? Isn’t groupthink precisely what caused us the trouble on 9/11 and in Iraq in the first place?

Questions.

When was the last Presidential Term there wasn’t a scandal in Washington that was supposedly pushed by the opposing political party?

Does it really matter?

If the end result is ferreting out corruption and/or incompetence then isn’t this a good thing regardless of philosophical/party lines?

Yes, it is expensive. Yes, it can turn into a witch hunt and yes, after an unknowable number of years the tables will be turned.

Stephen

We are misunderstanding each other.

The CIA should choose people it trusts. But there was no reason why the CIA should choose Wilson. Absent his wife working there, they would not have thought to send him. It is not that he is a bad guy, but there are hundreds of people who could do the job who already work with the CIA. Clearly, Miller questioned why. And Libby couldn’t answer the question at first. When he found that piece of the puzzle, it made sense. Miller went no further and didn’t write a story, which shows that she was essentially satisfied.

We just don’t have anything very profound either on Wilson’s side or Libby’s. Everything is reasonably explained and there is no indication of any crime or conspiracy. The nepotism is a minor issue and so is Libby’s comment.

Jack-
Jack, The guy spent years in the area. experience counts, and so does the security clearance and tradecraft that comes with being diplomatic staff. This wasn’t pulling a salesman out of a backyard BBQ, this was engaging the services of a well trained professional.

I am not under the impression that the region of Central Africa is a real popular one for folks in the CIA. I also not under the impression they necessarily wanted an insider, who might feel pressured to agree with interior assessments for political or career reasons. You may treat it as legitimate policy not to use a person who might dispute one’s idea of things, I find it to be a one-way ticket to groupthink stagnation.

As for Miller and Libby? First, the purpose of the leak is immaterial to whether it was a leak of classified information. He could have been looking for information for a class reunion of graduates of the farm- doesn’t matter. What matters is that Plame’s identity was a state secret. From there any claims of moral justification are just rationalizations of a crime.

It should be clear: Neither political revenge, bad manners on the part of the victim, nor the clarification of a well-connected reporter’s story should qualify as reasons to leak classified information. It’s wrong, and it endangers lives and our security.

No Stephen you are Hypocritical and sanctimonious.

Try as you might it happens on both sides of the isle, and you act as if it is only Republicans.

Keep on with this and it will give Dems a Black eye that will hurt your mid term chances.

The only guy who has continued in the face of the lies and has been proven to have lied is JOE WILSON.

You have already tried and convicted Mr. Delay in your mind,But because it is a Democrat minority leader she gets a pass a slap on the hands a 21k fine and no so-called major media coverage. How Convenient?

Are you also going to take the side and say that Cheney and Bush are in on it!

You have absolutely no idea what Patrick Fitzgeralds investigation will render till they conclude. wasted breath and energy!

One thing for sure now that Delay has stepped down there will be real vote (RNC) do Conservatives stand for something or just preside! Many of us right wing kooks want a new contract with our leadership or it’s get out?

CAD-
Critique the message, mister.

I believe I made the point some time ago, previous to this posting, that Sandy Berger deserved to be punished and deprived of his clearances for his breach of security.

I don’t appreciate my people doing this crap- it embarrasses me to hear about that when its my own party. The question is, do you guys share any sense of shame about what your people do?

Wilson did not lie. I think the worst he did was conflate his own report, done without the benefit of seeing the actual document, and that of the IAEA. Regardless, both reports are accurate. Wilson’s report establishes among other things that the signatures on the document were not even of the right officials, and that one of those officials left office a decade ago. Moreover, he established that the deal listed was impossible to pull off under the scrutiny that the Niger mines were under. Second, the IAEA established that not only were the documents forgeries, but sloppy ones at that. I don’t think it too more than a day for them to establish that. To be a liar, one must willfully say something false.

As for DeLay? Of all the horses to place your bets on. This is a guy who showed a reporter his little black book of Republican corporate donors who were going to get access while Democrat led companies would be left out in the cold. This is a guy who’s been hit with a number of ethics charges by his own people.

My brother, a lawyer, told me that the conspiracy charges 1) don’t require that high a burden of evidence, and 2)probably indicates that somebody has rolled over on DeLay.

Cheney and Bush are likely not involved in the TRMPAC affair. Reports from the Rove Grand Jury, though, indicate that they may have been involved in that affair.

We know they were willing to hold reporters in contempt, and held one in jail for 90 days. Do Prosecutors do that, especially in the face of political pressure for you and yours, because they think it unimportant?

Of course, you would contradict me if I told you the boiling point of water, given your responses here.

More vindication may be coming for my amazing “liberal method”. George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week:

Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

Link:http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/

Some of you might like to read a very interesting discussion that is going on over at Talkleft regarding recent aspects of the Plame case:
Judith Miller and Fitzgerald’s Agreement

Stephen

IF he knew she was undercover. It is also unlikely that this endangered her. She was not deeply undercover and doing a desk job in Washington

Jack-
That’s like arguing that somebody intentionally driving a car into your living room is not such a bad thing because you’re at work.

As for knowing or not knowing she was undercover, that’s irrelevant if the document he got it from marked mention of the information as classified. Rove,as we can establish from the grand jury testimony of Matt Cooper, knew the information was classified. If Libby had access to the INR document, he knew the CIA was trying to keep things quiet. The paragraph that mentions her is marked secret.

I think there is enough circumstantial evidence out there to support the notion that these people did in fact reveal classified information in order to slime Wilson. Is it convictable? Who knows? Maybe not. But I think in that case, it will be because of a technicality, not because of their innocence in the matter.

What are you rationalizing this behavior for? Do we really need to put those who already risk their lives at greater risk of death and torture because we don’t have the guts to condemn those who trade national security for a few talking points worth of benefit to the politicians they serve?