October 19, 2005
See Dick Run
According to published reports, John Hannah, a senior aide to V. P. Cheney is cooperating with authorities involved in the Plame outing case.
John Hannah is a senior national security aide to Cheney. Cheney snagged Hannah from John Bolton at the time Bolton was the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. And now Hannah is the focus of the investigation and it appears that he has flinched. He was told recently that he could face indictment for his role and wanted his complete cooperation.
He apparently did.
Some say that he cut a deal with special prosecutors to avoid prosecution. And that deal might be testifying against Skooter Libby and Dick Cheney. There's also speculation that Hannah was given orders by the higher-ups in Cheney's office to do the dirty work himself, so as to distant Cheney from the fray.
The possibility that Hannah has turned prosecution witness suggests that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is now looking deeper into the motive for outing Plame. Fitzgerald may be looking at a conspiracy case surrounding the scheming by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and by the Pentagon's ultra-secret Office of Net Assessment, who were tasked with "selling" the war in Iraq.
Another reason Hannah may be willing to talk is his involvement with Chalabi. He and Skooter are currently under investigation for their alleged activities in an intelligence program run by the controversial Iraqi National Congress (INC) and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi. So things aren't going as planned and he may have to deal.
According to published reports, John Hannah, a senior aide to V. P. Cheney is cooperating with authorities involved in the Plame outing case.
The New York Time article you link to only says that Hannah testified. So where do you get the “Some say that he cut a deal” and the “There’s also speculation that ..” information from?
it appears that he has flinched…
He apparently did…
Some say that he cut a deal…
that deal might be testifying…
There’s also speculation that…
The possibility that Hannah has turned prosecution witness suggests…
Fitzgerald may be looking at…
Another reason Hannah may be willing to talk…
So things aren’t going as planned and he may have to deal.
John, 14 sentences and 9 assumptions. You just might have a career as an MSM journalist :)
Hope against hope it is true. Can’t blame them, I guess the left really has nothing else.
Posted by: Peter at October 19, 2005 06:23 PMPeter,
It’s beginning to feel a
lot
like
Fitzmas.
Yes, it feels like an early Christmas for liberals. The Bush administration consists of a lot of utterly despicable people, and they’re about to go down. A lot of people on the right are in deep denial.
I’d suggest conservatives follow Jim Carrey’s advice in “Dumb & Dumber,” and:
“Think of a happy place.”
Of course, it’s possible the Republican prosecutor, Fitzgerald, will not come out with any indictments. He’s already state he will not issue a report.
However, I completely trust this guy’s conclusions. I’ve known a friend for a long time who does work similar to Fitzgerald. These guys are implacable, unforgiving, & absolutely relentless. If a crime was committed, Fitzgerald will crucify the perps.
So there’s probably a good reason Rove has missed his last five public appearances. We’ll know one way or another, and soon.
And if Republicans stay in denial, they’re setting themselves up to get hit by a train. It’s next week…
Merry Fitzmas!!!
Posted by: phx8 at October 19, 2005 07:20 PM
Merry Fitzmas!!!
Festivus …. for the rest of us!
Posted by: Taylor at October 19, 2005 07:25 PMYou’re all jumping to a lot of happy conclusions considering this article really didn’t say anything, except Mr. Fitzgerald still doesn’t know (or won’t say) what he’s going to do.
If we don’t get indictments and we don’t get a report, I would like to suggest some political action come the next elections.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 19, 2005 08:08 PMStephanie-
Here’s the story: Fitzgerald is not issuing a final report, which means one of two things: He’s not going to do anything, or he’s going to hand down some indictments.
Which do you think is more likely?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 08:25 PMJohn Trevisani,
Could you please provide links to the published reports which you reference? As others have stated, the article you link to says nothing about Hannah except that he was questioned. I would be very interested to learn more about his involvement.
Thanks.
I did find this interesting list of players at thinkprogress.com when I googled Hannah. There are further links there, but nothing to the extent of what you are saying.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal#hannah
Posted by: Cole at October 19, 2005 09:07 PMWhich is more likely? According to all published reports, Fitzgerald himself hasn’t even decided yet if he’s going to seek indictments or not, which at the very least demonstrates that if there’s a case here it’s not a terribly strong one.
You only have to contrast this investigation with how the Whitwater special prosecution played out.
As the investigation unfolded, there were many indictments, prosecutions and guilty verdicts along the way as the special prosecuter built his case. James and Susan McDougal, Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and a number of Arkansas bankers were all indicted along the way.
But Fitzgerald has been at this for two years already, and has yet to indict, much less try, anybody, suggesting that there’s not only no smoking gun here but no certainty on the part of the special prosectutor that he’s even investigating a crime.
So will “Fitzmas” fizzle? If I were to bet, I’d say yes.
If Fitgerald does seek indictments, remember, he’ll first have to submit them to the grand jury. So there are two hurdles to clear here before there could be actual indictments.
The way the media has hyped every bit of leaked grand jury testimony as if it were brand new information (even when the prosecuter has known about it for over a year) is ridiculous.
If indictments do come, however, you can be pretty sure at this point that they won’t pertain to the original topic of “outing a CIA agent” but to something like obstruction of justice or perjury.
And that Fitgerald’s uncertainty arises from having to decide if any descrepencies in testimony have been intentional, the result of faulty memories, and that’s sufficient evidence of some “true” sequence of events to bother bringing such nebulous charges to court.
Sanger-
When you go against the most powerful people in America, you don’t go unprepared, having failed to get your facts straight or not having sought all the suspects you can. You may see it as evidence of a weak case, but you neglect the fact that if the case had been that weak, he would have likely have penned a report, slapped a few wrist and have been done with it. Don’t contrast this with Whitewater. the Independent counsel was not on a deadline.
This guy, in case you don’t know, has gone after mafia bosses, the WTC bombers, and even Osama Bin Laden himself. Again, he wouldn’t be wasting his time if there wasn’t something to investigate.
Forget the leaked grand jury testimony. Try the published accounts of the reporters themselves (who count for much of the delay). Each confirms having been told of Valerie Plame. One of them says that his source actually said the information was going to be declassified, which implies that Rove knew the true nature of the information.
I think I posted the link elsewhere to the man saying that because Valerie Wilson went out on missions under the Brewster Jennings cover a number of times in the last few years, Wilson was covered by the law in question.
Tell me something: why is it that you say we can’t draw conclusions from leaked evidence, and then turn around and draw them in your own statements?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 09:56 PMStephen, I’m not drawing specific conclusions from leaked testimony so much as pointing how any bit of leaked testimony gets taken out of context and then hyped as further evidence against only a few individuals.
The leaked testimony has followed a definite trend, however, so it’s not really a stretch to draw a few broad conclusions.
We know, for instance, that Fitgerald has looked into inconsistencies between various parties, including administration officials, CIA staff and a number of journalists. We don’t know, however, that he is in possession of a “true” sequence of events which he could measure against any particular person’s testimony and allow him to conclude that testimony was false. Or, if it was false, that it was deliberatly so, and an effort to obstruct justice. If anything, since Fitgerald can’t make up his mind what to do at this late hour, it seems that he is NOT in possession of any such definitive information.
We do NOT know, however, that this all Fitgerald is focusing on—he’s had two years, so could be investigating any number of other angles. All we know is that he hasn’t made up his mind yet whether to persue these other angles either.
As many commentators, left and right, have already pointed out, Fitgerald actually doesn’t have the authority to “pen a report.” That isn’t part of a special prosecuter’s designated duty. His choices are to do absolutely nothing or determine that there’s been an indictable crime. That he’s declined to write a report indicates nothing except some people’s unfamiliarity with the functions of a special prosectuter.
For all we know, if Fitgerald indicts anybody it might be a reporter or two or somebody in the CIA—possibly in addition to or even instead of Libby or Rove. It’s the media and the left wing blogosphere here who is singlemindedly focused on the administration.
You correctly point out that there is a deadline here for the prosecuter, as there wasn’t in Whitewater. But shouldn’t this mean that if there were a strong and obvious case the prosecutor would hurry things along a little? As it stands, we’re in eleventh hour and he hasn’t even decided whether or not he’s going to do anything at all.
I’d wager against indictments at this stage, but they wouldn’t suprise me. Not considering the history of such high profile special prosecutions, in which the prosecuter is under so much public pressure to produce SOMETHING after his years of labor and tax-payer funded work. But as you point out, Fitgerald has a history of being a tough dude.
Posted by: sanger at October 19, 2005 10:44 PMSanger-
Context is abundant outside the halls of the grand jury. This is not so much a problem of missing that, as missing some of the key facts and events.
Meaningful information has surfaced, which has White House officials telling reporters about a covert agent days before it was public knowledge. It has one official saying that he was giving him classified information. It has another telling a reporter information he will deny in front of a grand jury he ever gave her. If these people escape criminal charges, they will be very lucky, especially having lied to somebody like Fitzgerald.
As far as the leaks go, Fitzgerald is generally acknowledged to be the source of none of them. This guy’s friends say he plays his cards so close to his chest they’re practically in his underwear. He’s not one of these guys who throws up a wall of microphones everyday and makes big promises that “ooh, those guys are going to get it.”
My instinct on this guys is that he’s very disciplined, and more than willing to let people think what they want while he puts his strategies together.
He’s not hurrying, because only fools hurry their cases. Earle’s double indictment is an example of that. Fitzgerald’s indictments, when and if they come, aren’t going to be the kind that are so nice, they have to be done twice.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 11:17 PMStephen:
I think the point here is that no one really knows what Fitzgerald is going to do, including possibly Fitzgerald himself at this point. And if he does know, he’s playing his cards close to the vest, as he should.
Yet Democrats and the media are gleefully conjecturing about what might happen. I recall they did this with the Dan Rather memos, and look how awkwardly that turned out.
From everything I’ve read, Fitzgerald is a class act, someone relatively immune to political leanings, a good prosecutor, and a fair man. As you pointed out, he is no Ronnie Earle. I pointed out that John Trevisani’s short post contained 9 conjectures. Don’t you think it makes sense to have at least some information before conjecturing. I saw absolutely nothing new in any of the posts above.
Allow me to ask you directly: Is there anything new that you know regarding this case, or is it all just idle conjecture at this point?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 19, 2005 11:43 PMMeaningful information has surfaced, which has White House officials telling reporters about a covert agent days before it was public knowledge.
That statement is pure spin. In truth, information has surfaced about White House officials discussing with reporters the subject of who sent Joseph Wilson to Niger and why. Information has NOT surfaced that administration officials told reporters this and not the other way around. Or if they did tell one or more reporters, that they weren’t first told by another reporter.
Further, there’s been absolutely NOTHING (at least as far we know, based on leaks) which demonstrates that White House officials ever said, or even knew, that anyone was “a covert agent.”
If there were—if things were really that cut and dried—Fitzgerald’s job would be very easy. How do you interpret the fact, incidentally, that he hasn’t decided even decided yet whether or not to issue indictments?
Posted by: sanger at October 19, 2005 11:46 PMI wonder what the RightWingNuts will say when their people are indicted:
1. Wait until the Trial is over?
2. Oh yeah? At least they didn’t have blowjobs!!!
3. It’s all a leftwing/media conspiracy!!!
4. You are supporting Terror by indicting them!!!
5. Why don’t you support Our Troops???
6. All the Left can do is Indict and Accuse!!! They have no Plan of their own!!!
7. All this happened a long time ago. Why don’t we move forward instead of looking back?
Also, Stephen, though you’re praising the wisdom and judgement of Fitzgerald now, I wonder if you’ll be consistent if Fitzgerald doesn’t indict at all, or does indict on minor charges, or doesn’t indict the people you want him to.
I hope you won’t be among the predictable chorus of voices calling the prosecuter a Republican hack if October 28 comes and goes and the left ends up with a lump of coal in their Fitzmas stocking.
Posted by: sanger at October 19, 2005 11:55 PMSanger,
Yes, we’re shaking the presents under the Fitzmas tree, wondering what’s inside. Is this red present with the gold bow a Rove indictment? The blue one a Cheney resignation? Will the spirit of St Fitz follow the trail towards the larger conspiracy of lies which resulted in the invasion of Iraq?
You’re right, there’s a potential for disappointment, no doubt. Good posts, btw. But I’ll take you up on that wager. This is the best chance of an honest investigation of the White House we’re likely to see. I’m guessing Fitzgerald will err on the side of caution, but for the people he does indict, well, they’ll be well and truly screwed, deservedly so. Indictments for perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy are coming down the pike…
This excerpt from the Washington Post:
“John Hannah, an aide to Cheney and one of two dozen people questioned in the CIA leak case, has told friends in recent months he is worried he may be implicated by the investigation, according to two U.S. officials.”
I wonder why Hannah is worried that he may be implicated if he did nothing wrong, or if no one did. This seems like a “tell” as we say in poker. It seems that he may have a reason to worry.
What we know now is that Fitzgerald has made some sort of decision. He has said as much in his statements that he would make his announcement in Washington as opposed to Chicago. That is an affirmative statement, meaning that he has something to announce. I know I’m reading between the lines, but it seems that he would refrain from making any kind of statement if he were still short of a decision.
What that announcement will be, of course, will not be known until he enlightens us (or someone).
It does seem that Libby is the most likely one to be in the front row. Even Rove has cast a glance toward Libby in his statement that he learned of the Valerie Plame info from him. But if the two of them were in discussions prior to the Novak story, as the testimony seems to reveal, then Rove may also receive some judicial attention as a result of the investigation. The fact that he has cancelled appearances seems to add fuel to that fire.
I’ll be the first to admit that this is all conjecture on my part, based on what I’ve read. Fitz may come back with nothing. A lot of people will be surprised if that happens.
Here is some very interesting reading on this topic. Draw your own conclusions, of course, but it does look bad for the VP’s office.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html
http://impolitical.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Cole at October 20, 2005 02:30 AMHere is a video all of you should watch.
Sorry for the multiple posts. I’ll stop for now.
http://video.csupomona.edu/HotTalk/KarenKwiatkowski-245.asx
Posted by: Cole at October 20, 2005 04:19 AMCole: Thanks
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html
Posted by: john trevisani at October 20, 2005 07:22 AMAldous:
What EVERYone should say at this point is this:
1)What are the facts?
2)Is there enough solid evidence to indict?
3)Should we just convict now or wait for a potential trial?
4)Should the public, the media, or Patrick Fitzgerald be the ones to call for an indictment?
5)Should the public or the media act as the jury, even before a potential trial if necessary?
It seems that you are always on the side of convicting Republicans in the court of public opinion. I’ve not seen any indication in your multiple repetitive posts to suggest that you care about the facts, the timing, the concept of innocence until proven guilty, or the potential of political chicanery in the process. You seem to care only that the opportunity exists to bash a Republican, and you don’t want to miss that opportunity.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 20, 2005 08:10 AM“I’d wager against indictments at this stage”
Sanger,
You name the wager and I’ll even give you 2:1 odds. I’m willing to bet as much $$$ as you want. Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Posted by: Andrew L. at October 20, 2005 11:00 AMWhy is it that when republicans are in office, democrats work to get them convicted of a crime and when democrats are in office, republicans work to get them convicted of a crime. Is that all we are now is a bunch of whiney ass babies that piss and moan about anything and everything? I haven’t read one intelligent thing on this thread.
Posted by: Tom at October 20, 2005 11:08 AMJoe,
No one has been convicted of anything, much less indicted. However, a situation serious enough to result in legal indictments should certainly result in a person leaving leaving office. Depending on the nature of the charge, the person should leave with or without pay, and should certainly be eligible to return to the position once cleared of wrongdoing.
Innocent until proven guilty? Of course.
“Potential political chicanery”? At this point I don’t think anyone would accuse Fitzgerald of chicanery- though ‘chicanery’ is a great word, and should be used as often as possible! Example: “Where is a great place to meet girls?” Answer: “The Chicanery.”
Now why would anyone feel the need to bash Republicans? Could it be the sheer hypocrisy of a Republican campaign claim to restore honor and dignity? That, after placing a successful president on the witness stand to testify about sex? Or maybe the underlying motivation has something to do with lying to the country in order to convince us to go to war?
Gosh, it’s just a mystery.
Oh! And as long as I’m ranting…
I’d love to see a Republican essay on the US bomb that killed “70 insurgents” the other day. The “70 insurgents” included 18 children. So how about an essay on why killing 18 innocent children is acceptable? And please, no dehumaning the dead- the essay should refer to the children by name, and include background details on the children, their likes, their dislikes, their hopes, fears, and so on.
Joe, I don’t know if what will happen on Fitzmas day. But the people responsible for inciting the American people to invade another country deserve far worse than indictment.
Posted by: phx8 at October 20, 2005 11:15 AM“1)What are the facts?
2)Is there enough solid evidence to indict?
3)Should we just convict now or wait for a potential trial?
4)Should the public, the media, or Patrick Fitzgerald be the ones to call for an indictment?
5)Should the public or the media act as the jury, even before a potential trial if necessary?”
You funny Republicans! You know, as Stuart Smalley would say, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
I’m perfectly willing to wait for the indictments to become official, but at the same time, I’m not going to deny that there is an EXTREMELY strong likelihood that they are indeed coming. How many media reports do you need to see from credible media sources before you accept that, at a minimum, some heavy-duty indictments are on the way.
The bigger question, it seems, is whether they will be mere obstruction/perjury charges or bigger conspiracy charges and whether or not they involve Cheney (and possibly Bush).
Bottom line, there is enough solid information out there to know that at a minimum there was dissembling to the grand jury. I don’t know how you can overlook these FACTS and not yet be willing to hold Rove & Libby to account.
Posted by: Andrew L. at October 20, 2005 11:19 AMFitzgerald is being careful, because he knows these wounded elephants (pun intended) will try and trample him on their way down. We’re talking Cheney here, who would eat his own young to save his butt. Indictments are coming, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Posted by: mrpuma at October 20, 2005 11:33 AMAndrew:
I’ve seen so many versions of the Plame case that I don’t hold ANYone accountable at this point. What makes the most sense is to consider the information as it appears, but to also recognize that it is third party information that may not be accurate. Fitzgerald’s information will be the most accurate, and it is that information that I am waiting for.
I’d hate to have someone with your stated viewpoint on a jury. With each bit of information, you’d be deciding on the guilt of the defendant, without waiting to hear the whole story in context. By the time the prosecution finished its case (in our situation, the prosecution being played by the MSM), you’d have reached your decision.
I don’t see how you can take my list of questions as anything BUT the only way to look at this. To decide before hearing all the facts from all sides, or to consider yourself knowledgable enough about the details of the case to make decisions before even the special prosecutor is ready to do so is simply silliness.
Phx8:
I most assuredly did not accuse Fitzgerald of political chicanery. By the accounts I’ve read, he is immune to political gamesmanship, and thereby the resultant potential chicanery. Of course, in fairness, I did read that from the MSM which often sees Special Prosecutors who are prosecuting Democrats as demonic, and Special Prosecutors who are prosecuting Republicans as saints.
But I’m giving Fitzgerald the benefit of the doubt. Once I see HIS logic, his investigation and his rationales, then I will be able to better determine whether I see any chicanery in his actions.
I hope I have now used the word ‘chicanery’ often enough to please and titillate your voracious verbal appetite.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 20, 2005 11:45 AM“Andrew:
I’ve seen so many versions of the Plame case that I don’t hold ANYone accountable at this point. What makes the most sense is to consider the information as it appears, but to also recognize that it is third party information that may not be accurate. Fitzgerald’s information will be the most accurate, and it is that information that I am waiting for.
I’d hate to have someone with your stated viewpoint on a jury. With each bit of information, you’d be deciding on the guilt of the defendant, without waiting to hear the whole story in context. By the time the prosecution finished its case (in our situation, the prosecution being played by the MSM), you’d have reached your decision.
I don’t see how you can take my list of questions as anything BUT the only way to look at this. To decide before hearing all the facts from all sides, or to consider yourself knowledgable enough about the details of the case to make decisions before even the special prosecutor is ready to do so is simply silliness.”
JoeBag,
If it walks like a talk and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Everything that’s playing out in the media is true to character for people like Rove, Cheney, etc. and all the dots are connecting.
But you’d rather let wishful thinking prevail and hide behind the sanctity of the legal process and tell me I shouldn’t jump to conclusions? Please. I’m NOT on a jury — I am a citizen who can see what’s materializing in front of me and I’m outraged.
How many instances do we have of people involved in this scandal conveniently “forgetting” with whom they talked. I mean, doesn’t that reak of BS to you? You really think Rove “forgot” he talked to Scott Cooper? These are facts we’re dealing with, and the facts simply don’t look good. This whole thing smacks of people trying to cover their butts because they know they did something wrong.
Now let me ask you a question. While the Scott Peterson trial was going on, and you weighed in at the water cooler, what did you say to your peers: “That MFer is guilty!” or “I think we should let the legal process run its course before jumping to any conclusions”. Everyone I know said “That MFer is guilty!” because all the evidence pointed to it. If you responded in that same way to the Peterson case, maybe you should ask yourself why you’re not showing more outrage over this CIA Leak. I’ll give you a hint: the answer is BECAUSE YOU’RE A PARTISAN AND YOU’RE IN DENIAL.
Posted by: Andrew L. at October 20, 2005 12:38 PMThere’s no doubt, Joe, that Fitzgerald is being very discreet. And I will not say that we Democrats don’t view the potential fall of major administration officials with some measure of gladness. The leaks in the investigation could be misleading, but you must admit, they lead more in one direction than another, even among sources that might be considered more likely to break for the Republicans. I mean, take Judith Miller for example. She was in the frontlines pushing the WMD angle for the Bush administration. She was tied to an exploitation team whose purpose was to find them, and she reported many times that they had found these things or that they were on its trail.
She was one of a select few reporters who were called in and given the leak about Valerie Wilson. As the investigation proceeded, and Libby was questioned in front of the Grand Jury, her account is that he testified that he had not told her what he did- a potential perjury charge.
She did not want to contradict that account, she says, so she interpreted the message given by Libby’s attorney, which was given with the information about Libby’s testimony, as cue to clam up. This is from her own account of things.
Why would Libby not tell the truth about his conversation with Miller? Why did Rove tell Matt Cooper that the information was being declassified, if he didn’t know it was secret or that Valerie Wilson’s identity was a sensitive.
There’s reason to believe this administration leaked this information. The fact that it was leaked to several different reporters at once indicates that this was an organized effort. The question is not whether the Bush administration leaked this information. That much is clear now. The question is how criminal the behavior is, and how many Bush administration officials were involved.
Sanger-
Bull. We have Rove at least telling Cooper that the information he was handing him was in the process of declassification. In short, still classified. The only sources implying otherwise are those under suspicion.
Moreover, there is a definitive peace of evidence, an INR memo provided to Colin Powell which both mentions Valerie Wilson, gives her association with the CIA, and also marks that information as secret. Since Valerie Wilson had indeed worked overseas on CIA business, these facts mean that the law against revealing agent’s identity may indeed apply.
Finally, nothing about Fitzgerald’s silence implies that he is vacillating about what to do. Indeed, those who know him say that this is more a sign of his discretion, which means that his silence is probably more about not giving his potential indictees warning about what his moves will be. Yours is a false sense of security.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2005 01:33 PMNothing would surprise me, because we’ll most likely never see the real magnitude of the corruption. We’re only seeing a tiny bit that leaks out when someone gets careless.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2005 01:35 PMP.S. Funny title…I actually had one of those “See Dick, See Jane, See Spot” books in the 1st grade.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2005 01:38 PMStephen:
We have Rove at least telling Cooper that the information he was handing him was in the process of declassification.
We now have Rove and Libby discussing Plame.
Posted by: john trevisani at October 20, 2005 01:41 PM
John, nice article with an hilarious title!
See Dick Run, indeed! Btw, Is the irony of the name WHIG being lost on anyone? After all, the meaning of the terms Neocon and Whig are practically synonymous…
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!”
(Sir Walter Scott, poem: Marmion)
Here is an interesting article which tells us that yes, W and Lil’ Scotty McClellan were lying through their teeth, again — because he knew all about what Rove did, while publicaly claiming he wanted to get to the bottom of the leaks. And no, W wasn’t at all upset with the fact that Karl and Libby had outted a CIA agent in order to discredit the truth of what her husband was saying, it’s just that he thought that:
Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson,
Also, have you read what Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was the chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell (who didn’t want him to speak out, though he decided to anyway), just said at the New America Foundation? Severely harsh criticism of what he calls “The Oval Office Cabal”. Here is a partial transcript of his remarks.
phx8 — Great posts.
Fitzmas! :^D That is so damn funny!
AndrewL — yours are spot-on too. You wrote: “This whole thing smacks of people trying to cover their butts because they know they did something wrong.”
Damn right it does. And while all this was going on everyone on the left OR right was being labled “unpatriotic” and “unamerican” by these evil, traitorous f*ckers for speaking out against their optional war based on lies.
Cole — very interesting video. Thanks for that link. Just further backs up what several others have said about how these Neocon bastards cherry-picked their intelligence to support their predetermined foreign policy decisions which has lead to this impossible quagmire and the loss of over 2000 American lives.
Aldous
You forgot
- Why do you hate America?
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 20, 2005 02:57 PM:: crickets chirping::
It always gets so quiet around here when the Repuglicans know they’re beat.
I find it tough to believe there’s not even one out there willing to take on this debate.
What I’d like to know is: what will your opinion be if/when the indictments come? Will you finally be hold the indictees to account or will you find another excuse?
Posted by: Andrew L. at October 20, 2005 04:05 PMStephen,
Before I answer you’re question, let me demonstrate my mental processing first.
At the very least what occured was an inappropriate indescretion. It may or may not have been a crime and it is Fitzgerald’s job to determine whether it was or wasn’t. If it wasn’t, we as a country need to seriously consider making it one.
Now, to clarify what I’m talking about… IMNSHO, both the leakers and the leakees (i.e. the journalists) have partiscipated in wrong-doing, whether or not it was specifically illegal it was definitely unethical, unwise, and unnecessary, not to mention dangerous, stupid and destructive. I believe, that if our law is currently set up to allow it, that both the leakers and the leakees should receive significant punishment, and if the law is not currently set up to allow it that the law should be re-thought and re-wrote concerning this type of dangerous, stupid, destructive activity.
Now, onto your question, which was:
“Here’s the story: Fitzgerald is not issuing a final report, which means one of two things: He’s not going to do anything, or he’s going to hand down some indictments.Which do you think is more likely?”
I don’t know. And here’s why…
The only way I could make such a judgement is if I listened to (or read) the LEAKED information about a case of LEAKED INFORMATION. And, I must ask my own question in return… Doesn’t it make all y’all feel the least bit soiled when you read the LEAKED reports about a case concerning LEAKED information, when LEAKING the information to the MEDIA was the wrong-doing that shouldn’t have been done? Don’t you guys see that the LEAKING of information to the MEDIA is part of the problem and the DISREGARD by the MEDIA of the welfare and importance of CLASSIFIED INFORMATION is a significant factor that lead us to this point in the first place?
However, despite all that… I’ll tell you this much, Stephen. I hope there are indictments. I hope that both the leakers and the leakees are found guilty of criminal activity and imprisoned. And I really hope they don’t get some posh cell in one of the resort-like prison suites. That being said…I’ve resisted my curiosity and stopped listening to the leaked information quite a while back. My conscience is clear.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 20, 2005 04:10 PMStephanie,
Good point, speculation based on leaks in a case about leaking. Of course, the many of the leaks are by defendants & likely to be self-serving, still, there is a certain irony.
It’s a little like Saddam Hussein being given the death sentence for slaughtering the assassins who tried to kill him in the first place. That will be a courtroom of people who richly deserve each other; Saddam and members of Dawa, the Iranian backed terrorist group, now our buddy and participant in government.
Btw, If Fitzmas turns out to be a merry time of roasting certain chestnuts on an open fire, it should be kept in mind the perps will almost certainly be pardoned. About the best we can hope for is their being frog-marched down the White House steps, or perhaps humiliated into resigning, or- the longest shot of all- getting info into the mainstream about just how this administration duped the public into going to war.
Posted by: phx8 at October 20, 2005 04:29 PMAndrew L.,
While I’m a conservative, I’m not a Republican and certainly have no love for those involved in this case. But….
“How many media reports do you need to see from credible media sources before you accept that…”
Those credible media sources are leaking classified information, which is sadly ironic considering how this all started and doesn’t seem credible or ethical to me.
“Bottom line, there is enough solid information…”
Again, based on the leaking of classified information and you by no means have a complete picture, just the the tweaked version the media feeds to you on its silver platter.
“I don’t know how you can overlook these FACTS and not yet be willing to hold Rove & Libby to account.”
And here you forget that it is Fitzgerald’s job to determine what the applicable FACTS are and who needs to be held accountable, not you and not based on what little you know.
Why can’t you all just let the man do his job?
Posted by: Stephanie at October 20, 2005 04:30 PMStephanie-
Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, but they’re not classified. If you’ll notice, both reporters who faced contempt charges have written accounts of their actions in their respective publications. Nobody’s shown up at their house with submachine guns and battering rams.
The issue here is not leaks, which are a time-honored method of both political chicanery and altruistic whistleblowing. The Public has a right to know what’s going on in their government, especially when it concerns illegal leaks to punish the legal ones.
Sometimes, the barriers that keep the truth from us are not the legal barriers of classified information, but barriers of job security and political intimidation.
Personally, I need to know what’s going on, so I can know what battles to fight, and who to fight them for.
Fitzgerald is doing his job fine.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2005 04:46 PMSorry, y’all, but this case ain’t about leaks, it’s about revealing classified information. If it were merely leaks, there would be no special prosecutor.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 20, 2005 04:57 PMStephen,
“Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, but they’re not classified.”
First, I apologize for the error. Second, it’s just the illegal vs. unethical thing, Stephen. While what they’re doing now may not be illegal, it’s still unethical and thus still wrong. The reason media companies satisfy your curiosity is for their profit not out of some altruistic nature, that’s why they make their headlines as tantalizing as possible.
“If you’ll notice, both reporters…”
No, I didn’t notice, because I stopped paying attention. I’m practicing the art of patience in this regard. Besides, what these reporters did may or may not have been illegal, but again it was unethical either way. They don’t get a free pass from me, just because they’re the press.
“Nobody’s shown up at their house with submachine guns and battering rams.”
Are you suggesting that someone has done this at the homes of the politicians involved?
“The issue here is not leaks, which are a time-honored method of both political chicanery and altruistic whistleblowing.”
I don’t see much difference between the two when they involve the media the way it has been done here. Both acts are politically motivated, and not motivated by justice. I’m interested in justice, not name-calling.
“The Public has a right to know what’s going on in their government…”
Certainly. This should be done through changes in our laws to make government more transparent. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in doing that, all for their own selfish, corrupt reasons, which is why I’m supporting a different movement now.
“Sometimes, the barriers that keep the truth from us are not the legal barriers of classified information, but barriers of job security and political intimidation.”
Certainly. And sometimes the barriers that keep us from the truth are partisanship and political motivation. I don’t have any reason to trust the Republicans or the Democrats on this issue. My trust lies with Fitzgerald by default, and he’s keeping quiet for now. When he talks, then I’ll worry about it. As for now, it’s all political posturing, no matter which side it’s coming from.
“Fitzgerald is doing his job fine.”
I agree. Which is why I’m content to wait to hear what he has to say.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 20, 2005 05:05 PMI (almost) hate to say this, but it’s a real shame that none of the potential idictees are named Chet. Otherwise, it would be a great Fitzmas carol to sing “Chet’s nuts roasting o’er an open fire…”
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 20, 2005 05:30 PMAldous
You forgot
- Why do you hate America?
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 20, 2005 02:57 PM
The Republicans might hate America just like the Democrats do, but Conservitives don’t.
Take it from someone that IS conservitive that Republicans ARE NOT conservitive. At least not anymore there not. You might find a few Republicans that are, but they a getting to be a very slim minority.
The Republican party has been going liberial(with very few exceptions) ever sense Nixon was elected.
That is one of the reasons I left the Republican party.
I would venture to say that the adverage Republican today would’ve been a Democrat in 1968.
It may not be all that noticible because the Democrats have been moving further left too. The Democrats of today (again with few exceptions)would’ve been 1968’s radicals.
Andrew:
I’ll answer you (though I can guess that your response might be something on the line of and incredulous “suuuuuurre you thought that”.)
In fact, I’ll give you three for one. When the OJ trial was going on, when the Scott Peterson trial was going on and when the Kobe Bryant legal stuff was going on, I certainly read about them and formed general opinions based on the information presented. But…and this is the key…I recognized that the information was in no way complete and might even be presented by the reporter or analyst in a slanted fashion one way or the other. And so I withheld my judgement until I got all the information.
In this case, MOST of the evidence is still unknown, since Fitzgerald hasnt released it yet. So we only have the melange of information that the media has been able to uncover. I don’t have a problem with people forming opinions based on what is known; I DO have a problem with people reaching full blown conclusions without knowing the full story. It is this leap to conclusion without going through the process which is permeating our society, and causes all kinds of problems. Its the same leap to conclusion that CBS and Dan Rather did with the TANG memos. Unless perhaps you think CBS did the right thing by disregarding the comments of document experts and assuming the memos were authentic.
Thanks, by the way, for assuming to know how I reacted to the Scott Peterson case, which led you to the false conclusion where you conclude that “the answer is BECAUSE YOU’RE A PARTISAN AND YOU’RE IN DENIAL.” Your incorrect conclusion proves my point about how NOT to process information.
Stephen:
There are varying possibilities about what happened. I hope Fitzgerald gets to the bottom of it. From a legal standpoint, the case will be hard to prove since the law is written so that a covert agent must be KNOWINGLY outed. It will be possible to argue that potential leakers did not know Plame was covert etc. This is not intended as an excuse for anyone, but rather as a legal viewpoint on it.
Wilson tried to make it seem as if he was working on behalf of the VP office. That he was actually suggested by his wife gives his trip much less importance. The information he brought actually bolstered the idea that Iraq was trying to get uranium, according to the Senate Committee investigations.
Its very possible that Rove, Libby etc wanted to paint Wilson in a more negative light, while Wilson was painting himself as a knight in shining armour. There would be no illegality in this, nor even a departure from politics as usual.
If, however, they crossed the line into the area of illegality, then I’m for holding them accountable by the rule of law, but not in the court of public opinion.
By the way, Stephen, I expect Phx8 will be very happy that you too have now used the word chicanery.
Yep, I’m happy. The word is inherently chic.
Posted by: phx8 at October 20, 2005 05:57 PMSorry, y’all, but this case ain’t about leaks, it’s about revealing classified information. If it were merely leaks, there would be no special prosecutor.
How right you are. And revealing classified information is a felony that needs investigation into ALL facts before indictments are handed down.
And if indictments are handed down then we can say with some degree of certianty that a crime has been committed. Then there will be a trial. At this trail the defendents will either be found guilty or notguilty. If they are found guilty, THEN AND ONLY THEN will I start calling for the defendants to be held accountible for their crimes.
To try to make anyone accountable now, before there is indictments and a trial is nothing but politics.
JBOD
You were doing fine, until you said that Wilson tried to make it seem like the VP sent him. THe only evidence of seen for that is statements from the likes of you. I have read and heard Wilson’s own words that are pointed to and have never been able to see how he “tried to make it seem” (a softening of the usual, more bald misstatement that he “said”) that Cheney sent him. Could you post a link to document where he said this?
Thanks.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 20, 2005 06:18 PMMental Wimp:
You are absolutely correct on this. I overstated it when I suggested that Wilson himself tried to insinuate that Cheney’s office had sent him. Those insinuations came not from Wilson himself (at least as far as my limited research showed), but came instead from the media. I’ve listed a couple of examples below:
1)May 6, 2003 – A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson’ s trip, but not naming him: “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger . (from FactCheck.org)
2)In his post, Marshall quotes Wilson’s 7/6/03 op-ed, in which Wilson doesn’t exactly claim that Cheney authorized his trip. But Wilson did stress the alleged involvement of Cheney’s office—and you know how that Washington press corps can be! By the time of that evening’s World News Tonight, ABC’s Geoff Morrell was saying this:
MORRELL (7/6/03):Ambassador Joe Wilson says, at the request of Vice President Cheney’s office, the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002. (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071305.shtml)
MentalWimp, thank you for calling me on my overstatement. It is correct to say that the impression was created that Cheney’s office requested Wilson’s trip, but incorrect for me to say that Wilson created the impression.
Here is the salient portion of Wilson’s article where he refers to Cheney’s office:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report….The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.
Elliot Bay:
Chet’s nuts roasting…
good one. Corny, but good.
JBOD, Stephanie, Ron Brown:
There’s nothing wrong with sharing opinions in a forum like this. It’s the same as discussing the super bowl or the olympics. Everyone shares what they know and offers opinions. Of course it’s based on limited facts, but that is part of the fun in it.
Everyone speculates based on what they know. Then, when it’s all over, they get to see how close they came to the actual outcome.
Since our opinions have no effect on the actual case, it’s harmless.
I’ll go even further. It’s a good thing to discuss what is going on with this, or any similar situation in our nation’s government. We all learn and debate with each other over the issues. It’s kind of our job, actually.
If we ran up to the white house, carrying torches, as an angry mob of villagers wanting to burn somebody at the stake, it would be a different story. But we’re not that. We’re doing what every US citizen should do.
So as for me, I think that Libby and Rove are probably guilty of committing a crime, as well as Hannah. I don’t think Cheney or Bush will get into any trouble at all. Of course, I could be wrong on all of that…
Posted by: Cole at October 20, 2005 08:13 PMThe grand jury leaks made so much of here (and elsewhere) tell less of a story, in my opinion, than what those who have testified to the grand jury have actually said about their testimonies.
The leaks, even if reliable (a big if) are so incomplete that they’re like Rorsach Blots and people too easily see what they want to see. When considered, the leaks need to be placed in context with WHO was testifying and abot WHAT, something we’re at least in a position to know.
For this reason, it’s very important to consider the limitations on lines of questioning that Fitzgerald agreed to with each interviewee and their lawyers. Even when we don’t know the exact details of the testimony given, we can start to make pretty educated guess about what avenues Fitzgerald is (or at one time was) interested in.
For instance, he agreed to only question Miller about certain conversations with Libby. He agreed to only question Tim Russert about Libby as well, but according to NBC, who Russert works for, the questions pertained ONLY about Russert’s end a single conversation, and not what about Libby told Russert.
This information provides a good context for understanding much of the leaked testimony and offers a real window into what Fitgerald is thinking.
Rove said he heard about Wilson’s wife from a reporter, but also conceded that it might have been Libby. Libby says he first heard about Wilson’s wife from Tim Russert, which squares nicely with NBC’s story that Fitzgerald wanted to know what Russert told Libby but not what Libby told Russert.
Posted by: sanger at October 20, 2005 08:46 PMThere’s nothing wrong with sharing opinions in a forum like this.
That’s why forums like this exist. So go ahead and express you opinion. But just don’t have thin skin when you do. Because someone IS going to disagree with you, and BELIEVE ME, they will sure let you know they disagree.
Libby and Rove might be guilty. And it’s your right to have that opinion. However, remember that in the eyes of the law they are innocent unless/until proven guilty in a court of law.
That’s their right. As well as the right of every other citizen of this great country.
Stephanie-
Whew. With that quoting, you hardly let me get a word in edgewise!
I’m not a person whose comfortable with not knowing. I’m also, though, a person who is not comfortable with being wrong, or arguing from a wrong position. So I do my research. I point out the reporters, because the reporters are simply relaying their own firsthand accounts of both how their questioning went, and more importantly, their personal experiences with the people under suspicion. It’s unfortunate that these details had to come out this way, but I would argue that it is ethically safe to read up on these reporter’s accounts. They were, after all, given waivers by their sources.
The “submachine guns” line was a bit of hyperbole that is meant to highlight the absence of any binding demand of secrecy made on the content of their testimony. These reporters are not leaking, nor are they burning their sources. You would do well to read their accounts.
Your thinking on leaks is normative. Even with the more expansive FOIA and sunshine laws concerning matters of transparency in government, there are nonetheless still people out there who use their power and various kinds of holds on people to prevent damaging information from leaking out. This administration is among the worst in this sense.
In such times, what can one do? Political motivation is always a potential factor, but that all comes down to question of whether or not what gets leaked is factual. Deep Throat (Mark Felt) leaked details about the conspiracy to cover up Watergate. Would it have been better that we wait until Nixon was out of office to learn what he knew? Or was it better, ultimately for the truth, whatever motives lay behind its disclosure, to come out?
The ethics of leaking are not always one dimensional choices. There are conflicts involved, and sometimes it takes a bit of rivalry or perhaps selfish disgruntlement for us to learn about the wrongs done.
I tend to take my view of these things from a standpoint of theories. I can retain open-mindedness, if it’s apparent to me, as it is now, that some leak sources might be politically motivated. At the same time, I can perhaps piece together with others, what might be the case. If it turns out bits of information are wrong? I revise my theory.
Joe-
Which brings me to Rove. If the theory is that one has to knowingly out a covert agent, then Matt Cooper’s testimony adds the knowledge to the mix by having Rove state that the information was about to be declassified. He identifies her. The combination of the case, the Ambassador’s name, the statement of her relationship to him nails Valerie Wilson without even requiring the use of a name.
To know both her identity and the fact that the information was classified begs the question of what source he got those pieces of information from. It’s much more likely they are together in one place, than apart from one another, especially in light of the INR memo. If it is the INR memo they got it from, their goose is cooked, because that document contains the information marked as secret.
Wilson tried to make it seem as if he was working on behalf of the VP office. That he was actually suggested by his wife gives his trip much less importance. The information he brought actually bolstered the idea that Iraq was trying to get uranium, according to the Senate Committee investigations.
The Niger papers were not merely an indication of interest. It was old news that Saddam wanted to get around the restrictions on nuclear materials. What made the forgeries so beloved of Bush and Blair’s people was that they extended beyond simple desire to the point of an actual deal, with payment and transportation of that Yellowcake involved in it. What the forgeries bolstered was the argument that Iraq was getting Uranium. That of course, would be evidence of a program to create an atomic bomb working in high gear. That of course would indicate a danger to the stability of the region.
But Wilson’s trip confirmed details that made the deal that was described incredibly unlikely, and also pointed towards evidence of the document’s falsity. In the absence of other evidence, there was no proving a nuclear weapon was a possibility in Iraq’s near future, much less the nation’s present term.
Wilson’s one error was in claiming he had seen the documents himself. The information he presented, though was an accurate summation of the conclusions of the IAEA, which he happened to see, according to him. There is a kind of memory lapse called source amnesia, and it’s fairly common. You’ve probably experienced it: you remember a fact properly, but not where you got it from. Reagan recalled a tearful scene with a pilot and tailgunner who couldn’t be successfully extracted. He forgot that he had seen it in a movie. Wilson at least has the advantage of remembering something non-fictional, not to mention correct. The only damage is that he didn’t see the documents first hand. The IAEA, though, took only a few hourse to conclude that the documents weren’t just forgeries, but sloppy ones.
That he revealed these facts, his own and that of others, is the crime for which Libby and Rove went after him for. They just happen to bring up Wilson’s CIA wife, in both cases volunteering that she was CIA, not a very well known fact. One reporter indicates he heard this first from his source, while the other either at least gets it from her source, rather than feeding her source the info, like he previously claimed.
There were ways of painting Wilson in a more negative light that didn’t involve his wife. Politics as usual would mean calling him a liberal (which he wasn’t), and jumping on his political connections. Going after a CIA wife without asking the right people questions is at least questionable. Having asked, it’s illegal, because they would have been given a non-denial denial like what Novak got, which would have signalled to them that it was time to back away very slowly and then run the hell away from that strategy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2005 09:41 PMHaving been a news junky on this case, I have a theory about where the case is at which I think is supported by the totality of the facts. It doesn’t include a conclusion about ultimate innocence and guilt (questions I do have separate and unrelated theories about), in case anyone thinks I’m just being partisan here.
So let me lay it out from the perspective of Devil’s Advocate, the worst case scenario for the administration, and assume for the sake of argument that Libby is guilty as sin and was engaged in a campaign, involving other administration officials out of the VP’s office, to silence Wilson by outing his wife, who Libby knew to be a CIA operative.
Libby, I’m convinced, was Novak’s source for Plame’s name and identity—he spoke with Novak shortly before Novak’s July article. And saying so isn’t part of the Devil’s Advocate roll—it squares perfectly with Libby blaming Tim Russert, who he’d spoken to days earlier. And it squares perfectly too with the limitations Fitgerald agreed to in interviewing Russert and Miller, as well as his having seen Miller’s testimony as important enought to send her to jail for not providing.
To Libby’s detriment, it’s known for a fact, though, that he was talking in JUNE, well before speaking with Russert, not only about Joe Wilson’s wife but that she worked for the CIA. Miller’s notes show not only this, but that Libby may have mentioned her name (the words “Valerie Flame” were found in the same notebook in which Miller recorded her conversations with Libby, though she denies that Libby was its source).
So assuming that Libby is guilty, what’s his defense here, and why is Fitzgerald unsure about whether or not to seek indictments at this late stage? Libby, his lawyers and Fitgerald himself must have decided early on that discussing Plame to reporters, no matter what her actual job was, was not illegal as long as Libby didn’t know her status and knowingly divulge it.
If this weren’t the case, then Miller’s testimony alone, as well as Libby’s conversations with a Time reporter, would damn Libby and the case would be open and shut.
So what’s Libby’s defense under these circumstances? Blaming Russert, who appeared conveniently on the scene between Libby’s conversations with Miller and Novak, and who—by Russert’s own testimony, if you study it carefully, potentially gave Libby SOMETHING about Wilson’s wife that Russert can’t be sure Libby already knew.
What that might be a matter of conjecture, but Russert’s answers have been worded very carefully and haven’t denied outright that he, not Libby, brought up Wilson’s wife, something which he could very easily have done—but hasn’t.
So Libby and his attorneys have siezed on this vagueness of Russert’s testimony and have set up a he-said she-said scenario which can’t be proven either way.
Posted by: sanger at October 20, 2005 10:16 PMStephen:
It is not theory that one has to knowingly out a covert agent. It is fact of law. I don’t have the exact law at hand, but I’m sure you can find it for proof.
Cole:
I understand the idea of this forum. It bothers me nonetheless when people who claim to believe in our representative democracy and our style of law totally deny it with their comments. When people are willing, even in their own minds, to convict someone simply because they are on the opposite political spectrum, they divulge their truest natures. And if I am correct on this assumption, then there are quite a few in WatchBlog who don’t care much for the rule of law, but instead care about their own polarized viewpoints and their side winning. It is a wholly different thing opining that you think someone is guilty than to proclaim it.
As for me, I will remain consistent and state my opinions, one of which is to wait until the actual evidence is available before declaring guilt or innocence.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 20, 2005 11:02 PMAlso, I’ll add another thing.
The rapidly accumulating flow of public statements and leaks, together with Fitzgerald’s very odd dithering right into the eleventh hour, have me come to believe something other than I originally thought: that Fitzgerald is probably going to do exactly what special prosecuters almost always do in these high profile cases and punt. Which means issuing indictments on things unrelated to the original subject of investigation.
I think we should brace ourselves for nothing to come down about “divulging the identities of undercover operatives”—which should have happened by now if it was ever going to. But since Fitzgerald hasn’t packed it in yet either, he sure looks like he’s priming to seek the far lesser charges of things like perjury and obstruction of justice. It’s wait and see time.
Posted by: sanger at October 20, 2005 11:25 PMStephen:
Below is a link to the actual law in question. The key word seems to be “intentionally”, which makes the law very tightly written, and the reason why its only been prosecuted once in over 2 decades.
I also found a USAToday article that says that “the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a “covert agent” must have been on an overseas assignment “within the last five years.” The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson’s book makes numerous references to the couple’s life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.
“Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage,” she wasn’t a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents’ identities.
Whether Plame was truly a covert agent has little to do with the moral/ethical side of the equation, but it certainly has a lot to do with the legal side of it. The article suggests that Fitzgerald may not have much of a case for the actual “outing” of Plame, but he might have an ancillary case involving perjury or obstruction of justice. Victoria Toensing, another attorney involved in writing the 1982 law suggests it might be a “Martha Stewart” type of case, where the main charges could not be supported, but where other charges were supported.
Just thought I’d help out a bit with the legal homework side of the case, for what its worth.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 21, 2005 08:32 AMJoe:
Below is a link to the actual law in question. The key word seems to be “intentionallyâ€, which makes the law very tightly written, and the reason why its only been prosecuted once in over 2 decades.
There’s wiggle-room, that’s for sure. But not when it comes to obstruction of justice, making false statements and conspiracy. And now it appears as if that’s where the case is going.
It’s also a very common occurrence to go after people in this fashion. With Bill Clinton, the perjury case was based on a completely different case involving sexual harassment (which was ultimately dropped). With Martha Stewart, she was convicted of making false statements to investigators (not even under oath) not for the insider trading case that they were investigating.
So with the Plame case you have a similar condition. Where the intentional leak of classified information may not apply by definition to law because of technicalities, such as ‘Libby never said her actual name, but rather Joe Wilson’s wife.’, the fact that they gave misleading answers to investigators and apparently conspired to cover it up (use ‘former hill aide’) will be their ultimate downfall.
If the story published yesterday, is true, the President may have similar explaining to do. As he was the person saying that he knew nothing about it also.
Posted by: john trevisani at October 21, 2005 08:54 AMJohn:
I don’t know the details of what has been said nor how it has been said, so whether obstruction of justice can be proven is unclear.
I’ll suggest that whether indictments come out, and whether or not the cases end in conviction, the MSM will treat this case as if it shows the malfeasance of the Bush administration. In the court of public opinion, facts and proof are not as important as presentation and conjecture.
This brings up one of the truisms I have seen over the past few years. The constant bashing of the administration has created a kind of buffer zone for the administration. Take for instance the CBS/Dan Rather memos. The absolutely shoddy and careless reporting obscured what might have been an actual story.
Just as Republicans were seen going after Clinton because they disliked him so intensely, so too are Democrats increasingly being seen as going after Bush just the same way. This allows Bush and his supporters to suggest that ANY attacks on him are just politically motivated, just as Clinton was able to do.
This prevents us, the PEOPLE, from going after politicians when they deserve to be prosecuted. Ronnie Earle in Texas appears now to be overstepping his grounds, and doing shoddy legal work. If so, he will engender a lack of credibility that DeLay will be able to use against him, whether or not DeLay should be prosecuted or not.
We need to hold politicians in line. But when we and the media cry wolf, it gives the politicans cover.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 21, 2005 09:40 AMJoe:
I don’t know the details of what has been said nor how it has been said, so whether obstruction of justice can be proven is unclear.
i and others have posted links to articles with some of the details. There are details of conflicting testimony between Libby, Rove and Miller and about when talks actually happened.
So when confronted with conflicting testimony you have to ask yourself, who benefits the most from their mistatements? Would it benefit Russert to lie about saying that Libby DIDN’T call him to tell him that Plame was Wilson’s wife? No; it would benefit Libby.
This brings up one of the truisms I have seen over the past few years. The constant bashing of the administration has created a kind of buffer zone for the administration.Yes; backlash has occurred. But again, the press is the conduit of the backlash. Given the news about ‘how’ the media works with the administration, it’s not that far-fetched to figure that the Bush administration used the full force of the media to crush whomever they wanted (in your example, Rather).
Just as Republicans were seen going after Clinton because they disliked him so intensely, so too are Democrats increasingly being seen as going after Bush just the same way.You see, this is where you lost me. If you have any evidence supporting the Democrats ‘going after Bush’, please post it. As the way i see it; the democrats have been much too passive as the minority party and are very submissive to this administration.
Ronnie Earle in Texas appears now to be overstepping his grounds, and doing shoddy legal work. If so, he will engender a lack of credibility that DeLay will be able to use against him, whether or not DeLay should be prosecuted or not.Now who’s prejudging? It’s my understanding that Earle went through the grand jury process and the grand jury gave the okay to proceed. And it’s been Delay that has been trying every way possible to get the case thrown out. But judgements have been ruled against Delay every time.
Here is the link to Fitzgerald’s web page. It would be reasonable to figure Fitzmas will first be declared on this site.
Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2005 02:58 PMJohn:
Regarding Ronnie Earle and Tom DeLay, I’ll admit to not knowing the full details of the case—simply haven’t found it all that interesting. But I’ve seen Stephen Daugherty comment on Ronnie Earle and I’ve seen that there have been two indictments written because one did not contain the right information. There is the appearance of Earle being a bit on a witchhunt, but I dont know it for sure. I only used it as an example, perhaps a poor one.
You see, this is where you lost me. If you have any evidence supporting the Democrats ‘going after Bush’, please post it.
John, surely you jest. I don’t think I’ve seen a President who has had more bad things said about him by Democrats. Democrats and the media have compared this admin to Nazis, have fought with Bush on nearly everything, have accused him of being AWOL, have used fabricated memos in calling Bush guilty, have called him a liar, a cheat, a mass murderer etc.
My point was simply that Democrats have gone after Bush with a fervor. Whether they have ANY merit or not is beside the point…the point is that they have gone after him. In the case of the CBS memos, lets assume for a moment that Bush really was AWOL, a charge that so far has been brandished but never proven (also a charge that has never been formally brought by the TANG). The fact that Dan Rather and CBS used fabricated memos as their proof undercuts their case, and allows Bush to say in effect, “See what the ‘left’ is willing to do to try to hurt me. They lie about all sorts of stuff.”
Now, if Bush truly were AWOL, he gets away with it because of the overzealousness of the left. Clinton’s approval ratings went up after his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. The reason was that many people thought the GOP went after him with too much hatred and fervor, even though they were right about what Clinton did.
Geech, youall got these guys tried, convicted, and hanged.
It’s going to be real funny if a REAL court finds them not guilty. I mean youall are so sure that they’re guilty you’ll most likely want the judge and jury tried for not going along with youall.
Stephen,
You misunderstand me. It’s not that I think it unethical to read what the reporters have published, it’s that I don’t trust the reporters. At least one of them published information that seems to have identified an intelligence agent (and whether or not they did is part of what Fitzgerald is determining as I understand it). The fact that the information got PUBLISHED, versus the reporter doing the ethical thing and reporting the transgression to the proper authorities means to me that if the leakers are guilty so are the reporters. After all, they could have identified the fact that the transgression occured without revealing the secret information and thus saving Plame the hassle while still revealing the wrong-doing and not participating in the wrong-doing themselves. Plame never needed to be outed. She was outed, not just by the government official who “let it slip,” but also by the idiot journalist(s) who reported it to the world.
Concerning disclosure vs. leaks:
If an actual cover-up is occuring, then publishing it is good. If, however, we have someone in the government actively seeking to figure out what happened and to punish those he’s able by law (which you’ve stated is what you feel Fitzgerald is doing), then publishing the nitty gritty details when the details may or may not be facts and may or may not accurately represent what’s occuring, then publishing it is detrimental and amounts to gossip.
In order to allow me to illustrate this, you’ll have to bear with my imagination for a moment. I think you can handle it. ;-)
Right now, Fitzgerald is doing his job. I say, fine, let him. There’s no reason for the media to seek out leakers (or vice versa) to drudge up sensational stories.
However, if Fitzgerald were to announce that he intended to indict Cheney. Then, for reasons of inside political pressure, he rescinds. Then, unleash the media to be sure.
Worse yet, if Fitzgerald tells his wife that he’s going to indict Cheney. He also tells his best friend. (Both of which are fictional people, I have no idea whether he’s married or if he has friends… I’m just assuming such people do in fact exist.) Then, when it comes time for the big announcement he doesn’t do it. Now, his wife knows it’s because of political pressure. Her husband’s life is in danger or his career has been threatened, whatever, and she keeps quiet for his sake. His best friend, however, thinks he can help get the big bad guy, plus save his friend, because he knows this reporter…though only because they went to the same high school together. Thus, the proverbial shit hits the fan and we’ve got a the basic plot for a thriller novel on our hands.
In the end it amounts to this. You say, if you’re wrong you can revise your theory. How many people who are reading these stories have the 1) open-mindedness, 2) intelligence, and 3) integrity to do that? I’ll put it this way, if no wrong-doing was done then these men do NOT deserve to have their political careers ruined over this incident (though, they probably do for other reasons). Yet, some of them will just because enough people BELIEVE they are guilty, and to those people them either not being charged or being found not guilty just indicates (perhaps falsely, perhaps truly) corruption.
In other words, I formed no opinion about Scott Peterson’s guilt or innocence, because it wasn’t up to me. Now, OJ Simpson, that was different, but I was just a kid when that all happen. And Kobe Bryant, I don’t even know what that’s all about.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 21, 2005 06:24 PMSo, to all you supporters of the administration, putting aside the legal questions, given that Bush said anyone involved with outing Plame would have no place in his administration, do you think Rove, Libby, et al. should be fired? Or don’t you believe there is enough evidence based on their own testimony to conclude they were “involved”? Just curious.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 21, 2005 06:36 PMRon,
“… Youa ll got these guys tried, convicted, and hanged.”
Oh, none of these guys will ever see a day of jail time. Bush will pardon them, if it ever comes to that.
And there’s much to Joe’s post, which mentions the depth of the left’s dislike for Bush. It’s true. But consider the degree of unity in this country in the months following 9/11, and after Afghanistan.
The wheels came off our country with Iraq. And for that, no one is to blame but the Bush administration- which is what Fitzmas could prove ultimately prove, once and for all.
Do you believe in Fitzmas? Clap your hands, everybody… No, wait, that’s Tinkerbelle. If we could work Tinkerbelle into Fitzmas, we’d have the perfect political holiday!
Mental Wimp,
I wouldn’t count myself as a current supporter, but I did vote for Bush.
“…do you think Rove, Libby, et al. should be fired?”
So in answer to your question, probably, but I’d need to know more about what Fitzgerald actually found.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 21, 2005 06:47 PMLadies and gentlemen, don’t you understand that the communist party has taken over the main Democrat party. Just listen to the people that want to kill babies, legalize dope, do away with the law, have a complete open society. Listen to the people THAT LOVE HUSSIAN and wish he was still in power. THE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH SENSE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE IN WORLD WAR 3 AGAINST THE RADICALS.
PREIDENT BUSH SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE A LONG WAR AND IT WILL BE, UNLESS THE RADICALS, SUCH AS KENNEDY, DEAN, JACKSON, ETC. GETS US TO PULL OUT OF IRAQ AND ALLOW THE BOMBING TO GET TO US HERE. BY THEIR SPEECHES IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT.
YES, I AM A DEMOCRAT. BUT, ONE FROM THE OLD PARTY NOT IDIOTS THAT RUN THIS PARTY NOW.
Posted by: Walter Flatt at October 22, 2005 12:42 PMDON’T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE LAW. NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITED, JUST AS NO CRIME WAS COMMITED BY NIXON. IN THE NIXON CASE,
A DEMOCRAT, TURNED REPUBLICAN, BROKE INTO THE DEMOCRATE HEADQUARTERS. VERY ODD.
WHEN NIXION MADE A STATEMENT AFTER HIS LAST ELECTION, (BY A LANDSLIDE) HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE NEWS MEDIA WERE UNFAIR, BIASED ETC. I TOLD MY WIFE THAT THE WOULD GET HIM FOR HIS SPEECN AND THEY DID. 2 REPORTERS STAYED ON THIS CASE UNTIL NIXON RESIGNED. THE ONLY THING NIXON DID WAS TRY AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE UNDER HIM AS ANY GOOD BOSS WOULD DO.
NOW THE SAME SOURCES ARE TRYING TO PULL DOWN WHAT WILL BE A PRESIDENT EQUAL TO ROOSEVELT AND REIGAN. TIME WILL TELL THAT BUSH WILL BE THE NUMBER 1 PRESIDENT OF THE 21st CENTURY. YES, I AM A DEMOCRAT.
Posted by: WALTER FLATT at October 22, 2005 12:51 PMWalter Flatt-
Woodward and Bernstein started on the case about the time the Watergate Burglars were caught. Woodward, in fact, was at their arraignment.
If you listen to G. Gordon Liddy, you’re listening to a radio show hosted by a Watergate burglar. The Bias statements here, as with this administration, are a smokescreen, intended to turn voters against inconvenient facts they can’t explain away rationally.
As for protecting and covering up the misdeeds of the the people under him, that’s obstruction of justice. If this president did the same, he should follow his predecessor’s example and resign, because we cannot have the chief executor of this nation’s laws break the law with impunity. Nixon suffered for his misdeeds, Clinton suffered for his misdeeds, and now so will Bush.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2005 07:14 PMStephen,
If Bush has committed misdeeds he should certainly suffer for it, but do we actually know that he has? Walter Flatt saying he has is somehow unconvincing. I’m not saying he hasn’t, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t think that we KNOW he has.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 22, 2005 09:10 PMWe know Bush appointed underqualified people to lead his organizations. We know he pushed a very controversial candidate for UN ambassador over the objections of many in the Senate. We know that he has turned away those cabinet officials from office and from popularity who dared to differ on their opinions. We know he said that his staff members did not leak to the press- the reporters offer testimony that refutes that assertions.
Bush doesn’t need a grand jury indictment to have things he needs to answer for.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2005 12:06 AMStephen,
“Bush doesn’t need a grand jury indictment to have things he needs to answer for.”
No, he doesn’t, but I thought we were talking about actual criminal activity. None of what you listed counts for actual criminal activity and only the last comment applies to the situation in question.
If his staffers have a committed a crime, and he just didn’t know that they did so, then that’s negligence, but probably not criminal negligence.
If he TOLD his staffers to commit this crime, then he committed a crime and should (but probably won’t be) held responsible.
If his staffers acted on their own initiative to do this, but he did know and just turned a “blind eye,” and looked the other way, then he probably did committ an act of criminal negligence and thus should be held responsible in a court of law, but again, probably won’t be.
Now, considering the history of my posts, I would understand why some people may find it difficult to believe me when I say I don’t want to whitewash what happened. However, please trust me when I say that I want to vote the corruption out of our government.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 23, 2005 12:54 PMStephanie-
There’s always tension out there between the principle to act on what we know, and the need to determine that in a world where meaningful information is often incomplete.
I don’t think with an administration this secretive, this bubbled away, that we can afford to wait on verified information to start raising question. I’m afraid it will be years before we know the full extent of what went on in this administration with any certainty, and that it won’t be pretty.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2005 01:22 PMStephen,
“I’m afraid it will be years before we know the full extent of what went on in this administration with any certainty, and that it won’t be pretty.”
I don’t see that as being any different from any other administration in recent history. While you may argue that the extent and the severity of GWB’s actions have gone beyond prior administrations, the framework of which you speak is the same.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 23, 2005 02:00 PMhttp://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html
Posted by: why isn't this big news? at October 23, 2005 03:37 PM
