Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Nit Picks And Quick Hits on Plame | Main | John Hannah?!? »

October 18, 2005

Comments

BurbankErnie

So explain your conclusion to me like I am a six year old.

Are you saying here that Rove/Libby/someone in the Bush WH is going to cop a plea?? By Wednesday? In DC? Or am I reading your maze of links incorrectly?

GAK!

windansea

hmmmmm should I take a massive short position??

Syl

Well, we already knew (well, been told) that Fitz told Judy she's off the hook. I never thought Judy had to worry about that old stuff during this case, except to have to face someone who doesn't like her very much.

Keith

The idea that Rove might be charged with perjury for failing to tell about Cooper seems unlikely, at least to me, if it was Rove himself (or his lawyer) who first told Fitz about Cooper after they found the email. And that is what we have heard happened--Rove said he didn't talk to anyone else, found the email, and then immediately alerted Fitz.

It is perjury when you make a mistake and correct it yourself as soon as you find out? Especially if that mistake is entirely plausible (like forgetting a 2 minute conversation on a Friday afternoon several months ago would be)?

Mikey

Problem is this is all based on speculation (Fitzgerald appears ready to indict) and not any actual information.

We're just gonna have to wait and see.

Cecil Turner

Especially if that mistake is entirely plausible (like forgetting a 2 minute conversation on a Friday afternoon several months ago would be)?

Especially if internal e-mail shows Rove's version of the conversation is more plausible than Cooper's? Is this is all there is? I'm having a hard time believing it. And if so, what's the propriety in Fitz grilling him for four hours without warning him he's a target?

It also seems to me any useful information at Tradesports would be the result of insider trading. Anybody know which way Novak's betting? (And his testimony still hasn't leaked? Inconceivable!)

Newby

You forget a two minute conversation where you were discussing the very subject of the grand jury investigation?

And then your lawyer finds the e-mail which contradicts your earlier story-a lawyer who has an obligation not to suborn perjury?

And as Mikey says-this is just on what's out there-which I have to assume is the tip of the traitorberg.

I thought conservatives were tough on crime. You wussies.


And who knows what else is in those emails

Jerkweed

Oh come on-there's 8 pages of redacted material just in the Appeals Court opinion itself. And you think the whole thing is premised on a 4 line e-mail?

Everything you know you've learned from defense attorneys. Get a grip people.

Jerkweed

"Anybody know which way Novak's betting?"

Yes. He bet his sorry ass would be better served by cooperating with Fitzgerald. Ought to tell you something.

Kmind

This whole thing is a confusing mess.

The one certainty for me is that if people want to get you for anything they can find something.

The media will no doubt run with even the littlest thing as if Rove or Libby or whoever has been charged with the ultimate crime to humanity.

Then three weeks from now the story will be dead, maybe Rove will be back in Texas, but, alas, polls will still show people will vote for Republicans and the media will turn to Delay in preparation for the Ken Lay story.


Appalled Moderate

If all we get out of this is a couple of indictments of Libby and Rove for perjury and obstruction, color me not impressed. I think jerkweed has a point -- there has to be more here. (And, with respect to Libby, if he did not disclose that June 23 meeting, I think he merits indictment.)

And, if we end up with the original source for Novak revealed but not indicted, but the supporting case doin' the frog march -- I wonder how that will play...

Cecil Turner

Everything you know you've learned from defense attorneys. Get a grip people.

A rare point of agreement, CD. This might be wishful thinking on the part of "a person close to Rove." Or there might be nothing. But it doesn't tell us much.

Keith

You forget a two minute conversation where you were discussing the very subject of the grand jury investigation?

Yes, if (a) you had no idea at the time that the conversation was important at all; (b) you talk to dozens of reporters every week and have for years (we're talking about hundreds of conversations); (c) you are incredibly busy with details flying around all the time; (d) you had no specific logs of the conversation because it was patched through the main White House line.

Add to this the fact that it was Rove himself who, when he found out, informed Fitz, then Rove's story seems quite likely and his motives seems quite honest. And, he had four hours to clear up any misunderstanding on Friday.

The eight pages of redacted material? For all we know, it has to do with a CIA plot to set up the White House. Who says it had anything to do with Rove at all?

Jimmy The Freak

Who cares which way Novak bet on Tradesport's? I want to know which way Fitz's housekeeper bet.

TexasToast

I think jerkweed has a point -- there has to be more here.

I agree - but less, much less, led to the impeachment of a president. These guys have been wielding hot pokers for years - looks like they grabbed the wrong end this time.

kim

I like your image, TT. Is it the CIA that has been wielding hot pokers for years? I can tell you that MSM is licking it's fingers today.

I'm reminded of an ancient method of determining justice. The suspect had hot metal placed on his(More men criminals than women) tongue and if it burned he was guilty. The rational makes perfect physiologic sense. The innocent, sure in his innocence, will continue to salivate; the dry-mouthed guilty one's tongue confesses.
==================================================

kim

rationale. Gad, I also almost wrote it's for its.
===================================================

Jon H

"Yes, if (a) you had no idea at the time that the conversation was important at all;"

Except that, soon after, it would have become clear to Rove that it was important. As soon as the poop hit the fan, when the media figured out that a covert agent had been outed, Rove would have been thinking back about who he'd talked about her to in the press in the prior weeks.

You're looking at days, not months, after which Rove would have been recalling the phone call.

Geek, Esq.

Good news and bad news for the Bush admin.

Good news: Scooter gave incorrect information Plame's CIA division. That bolsters the theory that he came to know about her status through dinner parties and that the Bush administration played an internal game of telephone with the information. Not conclusive, but helpful.

Bad news: "They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that," a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday.

More from the Daily News:

WASHINGTON - A special prosecutor's intensifying focus into who outed a CIA spy has raised questions whether Vice President Cheney himself is involved, knowledgeable sources confirmed yesterday.
At least one source and one reporter who have testified in the probe said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is pursuing Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame affair.

In addition, at least six current and former Cheney staffers - most members of the White House Iraq Group - have testified before the grand jury, including the vice president's top honcho, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, and two top Cheney national security lieutenants.

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

Creepy Dude

An excellent point TexasToast. Here are the two articles of impeachment passed by the House on December 19, 1998:

"1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case."

(Articles 2 and 4 failed to pass).

Now if that was enough to impeach a President (and I agreed it was btw)-why isn't it good enough for two aids to get indicted?

Jimmy The Freak

Too bad the source for the Media (including the Daily News article) on today's story was the DNC:

"Evidence is building that the probe conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, has extended beyond the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name to include questioning about the administration's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence.

According to the Democratic National Committee, a majority of the nine members of the White House Iraq Group have been questioned by Mr Fitzgerald. "

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ff92e968-3f4b-11da-932f-00000e2511c8.html

Cecil Turner

That bolsters the theory that he came to know about her status through dinner parties and that the Bush administration played an internal game of telephone with the information. Not conclusive, but helpful.

Not sure the initial source matters all that much. The leaker knowing it was classified is the critical piece of information. "Internal game of telephone" is nicely put.

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

boris
The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

Which in turn depends on which side of the parallax illusion Fitz is on. If the Wilsons are intrepid whistleblowers instead of subversive schemers, then the ride could get bumpy.

kim

This has become titanic, and I'm getting tetanic.
=================================================

kim

I see clash of titans rather than parallax illusion. The truth is the razor, and very little seems to lie with Joe.
===========================================

cathyf
Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.
The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

Doesn't matter. Even if it was a "conspiracy to accurately report the facts" it's still illegal if the facts are classified.

The leaker knowing it was classified is the critical piece of information.

This is still the money question. Maybe they chose to push back on Wilson's "Cheney sent me" lie precisely because they "knew" that Mrs. Wilson was not covert and so this was the way they could push back without revealing classified info.

cathy :-)

Geek, Esq.

The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

The motive for the conspiracy is irrelevant. What's relevant is the means they intended to employ in order to realize that end.

For example: Five guys gathering to conspire on a way to raise money for someone's medical procedure isn't illegal. Five guys gathering to conspire to set up a Ponzi scheme to finance someone's medical procedure is illegal.

If they conspired to "push back"/set the record straight by using illegal means, then they've all committed a crime.

boris

The dire predictions and leaks suggests that Fitz is letting his foreign policy politics color his investigation. If he winds up jumping the shark one can hope it draws a sharp rebuke from the electied official actually in charge of foreign policy and defending the country.

Even if it was a "conspiracy to accurately report the facts" it's still illegal if the facts are classified.

I would consider this to be jumping the shark.

JayDee

One of my favorite points, Creepy Dude, and EJ Dionne makes it more cogently in today's WaPo ed Rule of Law? That's so 90'2

I think they'll understand my surprise and wonder over this new conservative concern for the criminalization of politics. A process that was about "the rule of law" when Democrats were in power is suddenly an outrage now that it's Republicans who are being held accountable.

But it's fun to watch them whine.

And what's the speculation on who the inside snitch is? Best bet is Ari. Dark horse? How about Pigboy Rove himself?

Cecil Turner

If they conspired to "push back"/set the record straight by using illegal means, then they've all committed a crime. [emphasis added]

Which gets us back to proving the means were illegal. And in this particular case, that means proving they knew Plame was covert. Which, as you pointed out above, is looking increasingly unlikely (on the basis of admittedly incomplete information).

kim

I think this is just Fitz convincing himself of the unindictability(read innocence) of the White House officials. Time, and time again, the expectations given us by the MSM have foundered with analysis of Fitz's tactics. Who's been reluctant to talk? Well, besides the press? I mean as reporters not spin doctors. We've certainly heard the chanting and the drumming of the which doctors.
=========================================

drjohnk

He said-he said is not a good case to take to trial, but I am still wondering why this is really procedding since 1. Wilson himself identified Plame as his wife in May 2003, and 2. she had not been covert since 1994, acccording to factcheck.org. So there was no crime to begin with.

Wolfman

What has caught my attention is that Libby openly talked about the facts that Wilson's wife promoted her husband for the Niger trip and that she worked at the CIA. That is inconsistent with public claims that he wasn't involved with outing Plame except in the limited sense - if true - that the reporters he talked to already knew.

kim

I got it. It explains why the Purloined Letter has come to mind several times in the last few weeks. Where do you hide a covert(still) agent? In plain sight, as an outed ex-spy, now in an analytical position.
=========================================

Jeff

boris - I haven't checked carefully yet: have you adopted your new talking points yet? That is, Libby should get off because he said Plame worked for Winpac when in fact she was undercover at the Directorate of Operations. Or are you waiting on definitive word from Powerline or the Corner?

Or maybe you now think indictments are coming down and you're setting your sleaze machine on "Fitzgerald."

Jimmy The Freak

Which part was classified? "Valarie Flame", "Victoria Wilson" or "WINPAC"?

kim

And just why, Jeff, was she still covert? What was she working on? There is an immunity there, similar to the marital immunity.

And Fitz is probably excruciatingly aware of all the immune disease running around.
==============================================

kim

What do you bet Porter Goss has had a thing or two to say to Fitz?
=============================================

pollyusa

There is some new information in the 10/18/05 WAPO that hasn't been mentioned.

WAPO puts the 6/10/03 INR memo in a meeting at the WH in June 03.

As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, Grossman wanted the letter as background for a meeting at the White House,

To clear up any questions as to why this quote says letter instead of memo, the WAPO also has this

The letter to Grossman....It had a paragraph near the beginning, marked "(S)," meaning it was classified secret, describing a meeting at the CIA in February 2002, attended by another INR analyst, where Plame introduced her husband as the person who was to go to Niger...

The article goes on to say that the INR anayist's meeting notes are attached. This describes the known contents of the INR memo.

One more point of interest, a former CIA official reviewed the INR memo in the summer of 2003. maybe at the Senate Hearings?

according to a former intelligence official who reviewed the document in the summer of 2003

topsecretk9

windandsea had the most interesting news, the Colin affrimed strongly that plame was not in the memo

and now there are 3 sneakies saying she never worked where the leakers said she did?

kim

Was State supposed to know she was covert?
===========================================

pollyusa

SusanG at Kos contacted Wilson yesterday and asked him flat out: "Are you a source for Miller? Is she protecting you?" His response:

No. I have only spoken to Miller once in my life and that was on election night 2004 when we were at the same birthday party. She came up and introduced herself. Legitimate question but it was not I
SusanG Kos

MeTooThen

BTW,

Father Saddam is going on trial today for mass murder, of his own people.

...

BusHilter!

RovEvil!

Halliburton!

No Blood for Oil!

...

Also, did anyone hear, the Iraqi people have voted on a Constitution?

...

And no, neither Libby or RovEvil will be indicted.

Nope.

Sorry.

Just sayin'

topsecretk9

Ask Susan to ask him what Fitzgerapld said a few weeks back.

cathyf
Except that, soon after, it would have become clear to Rove that it was important. As soon as the poop hit the fan, when the media figured out that a covert agent had been outed, Rove would have been thinking back about who he'd talked about her to in the press in the prior weeks.

You're looking at days, not months, after which Rove would have been recalling the phone call.


The problem with this is that the language is misleading. "To forget" is a verb, and the phrasing implies that he did something. "To remember" is much more accurate. Remembering is doing something; forgetting is not doing something.

The neurobiology is that short term memory is in one part of the brain, and is recycled every 15 minutes. If your brain decides that the memory is worth keeping, it copies the memory into a different part of the brain which contains long-term memories. If the brain doesn't have some reason to save the memory within the 15 minutes, then it's simply gone. If it doesn't look important important until hours, days, months, years later, then too bad, it's just gone. (And those repressed-memory recovery specialists are charletens.) So every single memory that every person has was forgotten from short-term memory. "To remember" means that you made a copy of the memory in long-term storage before forgetting it. So the assertion that Rove did not remember the conversation is simply the assertion that he did not copy the memory over in the 15 minutes before it got automatically recycled.

The interesting thing is that the existence of the email suggests that Rove expected, because of his lifetime of experience in his brain, that this memory was not going to make it into long-term storage. Everyone else who writes emails about 2 minute conversations does so precisely because he/she realizes that the conversation is not memorable enough for long-term memory and so transfers it to an email or other note because he/she knows that after it's gone from the short-term memory it's going to be gone from the brain entirely.

This really is the fundamental issue in dispute between Wilson on the one side and every other participant on the other side. Wilson claims that his wife's identity was vitally important to everybody and that they were conducting a conspiracy to make it public. Everybody else -- Novak, Rove, Libby, Miller -- claims that they had no idea that Mrs. Wilson's identity was anything other than a triviality. They all have a very consistent story -- that none of them can remember anything about these conversations and they only have their notes. If you argue that this must be a lie because these were vitally important to their illegal conspiracy to disclose classified info, then you are simply assuming your conclusion.

cathy :-)

AJStrata

WINDANDSEA,

Tradesport: I would! ;)

But I don't bet or speculate - you can probably guess why.

pollyusa

Topsecretk9

I did ask her that exact question and here is her reply. The question I asked was about Fitz's call to Wilson on 9/29/05 as reported in the LATimes.


Didn't ask

He was busy and on his way somewhere.

Plus, the first report of this Fitzgerald-Wilson phonce call was in the LA Times, and he refused to comment to the Times on anything about the call beyond confirming it had happened. I doubted I'd get any other response.

Fitzgerald seems to have this investigation in quite the lockdown, and I'm sure Wilson wouldn't want to do or say anything about the nature of any communications.
SusanG

TexasToast

Also, did anyone hear, the Iraqi people have voted on a Constitution?

A sandstorm that muddied Baghdad’s skies cleared, allowing officials to resume flying ballot boxes to the capital Tuesday so “unusually high” vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces can be checked by election officials.

The investigation by Iraq’s election commission has raised the possibility that the results of the referendum could be called into question. As many as 99 percent of the voters reportedly approved Iraq’s draft constitution in some of the provinces being investigated.
">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9659209/"> MSNBC

Who taught them this?

kim

cf, assuming the conclusion, in human interaction is disclosing yourself. Joe put his own evil on Rove. Fitz will see that.
============================================

kim

TT, maybe undergoing criminal siege taught them that.
================================================

Geek, Esq.

Which gets us back to proving the means were illegal. And in this particular case, that means proving they knew Plame was covert. Which, as you pointed out above, is looking increasingly unlikely (on the basis of admittedly incomplete information).

We agree there. I'm trying to address a common misperception amongst the "criminalization of politics" chorus that a conspiracy charge would be bogus.

Fitzgerald will only bring conspiracy charges if he finds that the players were conspiring to commit an illegal act, to be committed by individuals or collectively by members of the conspiracy.

He's not going to indict people for the mere practice of hardball politics.

cathyf

Kim sez:

I got it. It explains why the Purloined Letter has come to mind several times in the last few weeks. Where do you hide a covert(still) agent? In plain sight, as an outed ex-spy, now in an analytical position.
Well one thing that we can say is that the notion that this would work in the real world like it works in fiction has been thoroughly discredited. If the CIA really thought that having an agent with two cover stories (a triple life) was an effective way to keep a secret, then they are way worse idiots than any of us ever thought! Nah, there was no plan, they just hadn't gotten around to rolling up Plame's cover story and getting all the paperwork filed.

Who would have predicted that we would be left defending the CIA's competence by claiming they were merely bumbling idiots?

cathy :-)

MeTooThen

TexasToast,

Wow.

You really are something.

Anyway, to answer your question, the answer is...wait for it...

Vote Early and Often!

I should know, for many years I used to live in Dan Rostenkowski's congressional district.

And by the way, maybe if those Evil ZioNazi Halliburton McChimpy Iraqis didn't learn it from Hizzoner DaMayor, they learned it from someone in Philadelphia, or Milwaukee even?

Just sayin'

topsecretk9

Cathy is right. Additionally, to the conspiracy is the Admin actively pushing the outing, but in all cases it is the press come a calling, You can't have a good conspiracy if the conspirators aren't active.

kim

cf, I agree it is more likely that her technically covert status was more a tribute to bureaucratic inertia than the sign of another covert role. However, in the first instance, a jury won't convict for outing; in the second, they might.
==============================================

windansea

AJSTRATA

RE Tradesport

may have waited to long....last night Libbby was up to 66% Rove over 50%

now its Libby 60% and Rove 45%

perhaps I linked you too many times!!

keep up the great work!!

boris

You can't have a good conspiracy if the conspirators aren't active.

Unless they were actively conspiring to avoid charges of conspiracy by not engaging in one.

That would be extra double evil.

kim

The trick you're missing, cf, if you want to believe that Val wasn't meant to be covert, is that leaving her covert, but ostensibly non-covert, makes her a 'stovepipe' for disinformation that can't be challenged. Please don't tell me that no CIA officials are capable of this sort of chicanery.
===========================================

topsecretk9

I think one of the most significant occurrences was Time handing over Coopers notes and emails. It is my feeling, that in the end Pearlstine knew that Cooper had attempted to burn Rove and did not think Times Mag should any longer go to such degrees just to protect Coopers bad trade-craft.

kim

Did BoD urge Pearlstine?
==========================

chris lancaster

Except that, soon after, it would have become clear to Rove that it was important. As soon as the poop hit the fan, when the media figured out that a covert agent had been outed, Rove would have been thinking back about who he'd talked about her to in the press in the prior weeks.

This was on the discussion near the top of the comments about Rove forgetting Cooper's call. Of course, Rove would have been thinking back about who he'd talked to in the press. But, since it was an obscure 2-minute call on a Friday, could he have reasonably forgotten it?

In other words, given all the factors I listed above, couldn't Rove argue at least into reasonable doubt that he legitimately forgot that he talked to Cooper and resported it as soon as he remembered it? We forget that Fitz' goal is not to just indict someone, but to convict them. There's no way, with what we know now, that Rove gets convicted for trying to avoid telling Fitz about the Cooper call. His story is just too plausible (as TM's link from the "anonymous liberal" in his post proves).

kim

Pearlstine needn't be ashamed after yielding to Fitz, unless he, or the board, felt he'd been too complicit.

Maybe he's tired. Or confused.
===============================

Don

Creepy Dude. Bill Clinton was not indicted despite the stain proving his perjury and obstruction of justice. Impeachment is poltical action. If all things are equal, even if LIBBY lied to the GJ, we should suspend his legal license and slap him on wrist.


cathyf

Don, an impeachment is an indictment. Not a conviction, of course, but it is an indictment.

cathy :-)

Don

Not precisely. It may be analogous to a indictment but is not an criminal indictment.

Misdemeanor, Felony conviction? No. NCIC doesn't exactly have "impeachment" as conviction in the system. There is no jail time, fine, etc.

You need to prove this one. If wrong, I will admit it but you need to provide the data.

David Walser

Have we gone from the crime of outing a covert agent to the crime of not being sufficiently forthcoming with the prosecutor? If so, color me unimpressed. From what we now "know", it does not appear that there was a crime nor does it appear there was a cover-up. No crime because it does not appear Plame was covert (or that any of the suspected leakers thought that she was). No cover-up because Rove and the rest have shown at worst a bad memory of conversations that took place weeks, months, or years before. To date, there is not credible evidence anyone tried to prevent anyone from testifying or tried to destroy documents or tried to alter records -- all the usual indications of a cover-up. So, at worst, we have the crime of claiming you don't remember a conversation in the same manner another person remembers the conversation. Is this the "evil" the Democrats are trying to hang around the neck of the administration?

For those who are trying to compare the current controversy with the impeachment of President Clinton, you will need a lot more to make these two situations seem at all similar. Show us the false affidavit Rove encouraged someone to file. Show us the knowingly false testimony provided under oath -- not just once by several times. Unless you really expect us to believe a 2 minute phone call with a reporter is as memorable as oral sex with an intern, don't accuse us of being hypocrites because we find it reasonable Rove may have forgotten the conversation but unreasonable that Clinton forgot about the sex.

kim

Impeaching is separate from ordinary legal terminology. The mechanism of the determination of justice is different for an impeached person.
====================================================

Cheez-Wiz

"Bill Clinton was not indicted despite the stain proving his perjury and obstruction of justice."

Because you can't indict a sitting President dumbass.

After Clinton wasn't convicted in the Senate, (from a combination of Republican cowardice and their correct reading of the public mood), the Repubs just slinked away from the Articles they passed.

Velveeta Loaf

Fun Fact: Bill Clinton was the only elected U.S. President to be impeached in the history of the United States.

Cheez-Wiz

"Unless you really expect us to believe a 2 minute phone call with a reporter is as memorable as oral sex with an intern"

This is proof positive you conservatives never get any. You just assume every blowjob is seared into your brain. Lets (safely) assume Monica wasn't Clinton's first blowjob. Yes-a conversation with a reporter where you're outing a CIA agent may in fact be more memorable than just another office blowjob.

topsecretk9

Not sure I have more contempt for, Wilson or Pincus...here is a recent Joe interview...see if you can see what Pincus is telling him, if you were to have Pincus's tirade yesterday

---

Absolutely. I think when the history of this investigation is written it will go down as one of the most professional, if not the most professional, investigation of a scandal of this magnitude probably in the history of the republic—certainly in the history of the special prosecutor law.

(this is so pathetic, MAGNITUDE...HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC)

I got off the golf course yesterday and by the time I got back to my room there were 23 calls on my telephone. But I have no more line on it than anybody else does. Obviously I've followed it probably closer than most, and so I probably can piece a little bit more of it together than some others. But I have no inkling except what's out there in the public domain.

(this is do to his amazing investigative skills)

I get the latest tidbits. Like today [Oct. 7] [New York Times reporter] Judy Miller just happened to discover that she had notes, pertinent notes, dating back to a meeting she had with Scooter Libby in June, which she has now turned over to Mr. Fitzgerald. That's a very interesting development. And the second thing is the AP has just put out an article saying that the president has asked Rove, according to Rove's testimony [before the grand jury] in September of '03 É whether he had committed a crime in identifying my wife, and Rove apparently told him no.

I think justice is being done. I mean, the investigation is proceeding; I fully expect that if Mr. Fitzgerald believes a crime has been committed, he will indict the people that he believes committed the crime. They will be tried in a court of law. If it gets to the level of the president and vice president—I have no reason to believe that it will, but I have no knowledge—but if it were to [reach that level], I think the appropriate remedy is impeachment rather than indictment. And with all the levers of government—certainly of the legislative branch—being in the hands of the Republicans, I wouldn't expect them to open impeachment hearings.

I knew that Bob Novak had tumbled onto the story because I had spoken to him earlier in the week. He called and asked for confirmation, which I wouldn't give him. And Valerie had been working with her people to try and make sure that Bob would not write that article. But he did. When it appeared on the 14th of July Valerie said to me it was like being hit in the stomach.

(apparently not hard enough- hmmm)

I clearly anticipated retaliation. I had watched these guys operate long enough to know they weren't going to take this lying down; they were going to try to discredit me. And I had gotten out all my handwritten notes from the first President Bush from when I had been in charge of the embassy in Baghdad during the first Gulf War, and I got my pictures of me with the president É so I was ready to combat the allegations.

(my personal favorite..he also had Novaks previous article handy as well)

cathyf
Not precisely. It may be analogous to a indictment but is not an criminal indictment.
Fair enough. The penalty in an impeachment is removal from office, and that is certainly a totally different animal than a criminal conviction.

But the "analogous" part still begs the question, since you were drawing an analogy between the impeachment of Clinton and the possible indictment of Libby. So that's still open to debate...

cathy :-)

topsecretk9

just another office blowjob.---coming down in three part harmony

cathyf
So, at worst, we have the crime of claiming you don't remember a conversation in the same manner another person remembers the conversation.
Well, it's not even that much. With Cooper & Rove, you have two guys who both wrote emails on the conversation in the minutes after it happened but don't remember what they said and are just going by their notes. Which in and of itself is corroborating evidence that neither believed at the time that the conversation was worth remembering.

I'm telling you, it goes back to the same old conclusion that we all have run through multiple times: either Fitzgerald has something else, or he has nothing and this is the activity of a diligent prosecutor who is making absolutely certain that he has nothing before he drops it.

cathy :-)

Don

Sorry, Cheese-Whiz, but this dumbass thinks the issue isn't resolved. We have had a vice president indicted, that was Aaron Burr for murder of Alexander Hamilton in their duel, as well as Spiro Agnew.

Prosecutors do have the authority, the question of whether they should exercise it is quite different issue. Take Leon Jaworski weighing issues in determining whether to indict President Nixon.

Further, there have been a number of federal judges who were imprisoned before being impeached and there argument on this issue was rejected.

On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69 and 77, envisioned that the president would have to be removed from office before he could be indicted or prosecuted - but as they say, the federalist papers aint the constitution. Obviously separation of powers becomes an issue so perhaps the Supremes would give Cheney a pass and not permit prosecution till after his term of office.

So cheezy boy or Ms. Miers in disguise, its not absolutely clear. What may happen is cheney may become an unindicted coconspirator. Ohmy. Out.

Cheez-Wiz

First of all, I have never met you in real life. I assume you are a dumbass based only on the comments you make here.

I agree the Constitution is silent on this issue-however, the impeachment of Johnson and then Clinton IS the precedent.

A sitting President must be impeached. If convicted in the Senate-or even if acquitted therein-he could be indicted after he is removed or leaves office. The Repubs just lacked the guts for step 2.

Dan

I didn't read all of the thread, and someone else may have raised this point, but you simply do not, under American practice at the state level, have a problem with perjury if you correct your mis-statement before the proceeding is closed. I have not researched the issue of whether Federal practice is identical, but I can thaink of no reason for it to differ.

And I am like others: for institutional reasons, Fitzgerald is simply not going to bring a "nothingburger" charge. He never has. he will find a substantial violation of a substantive law, or not indict anyone. At this point, I would not bet one way or the other. He is a serious guy, though, by accounts of people who I know who have worked with him and against him.

BurbankErnie

Please. Everything written about Leaks and VP and this and that has been leaked/written and wished for by Left Leaning Enthusiasts(LLE).

Since we cannot have a serious discussion with LLE's, how can we believe what is written by the likes of Isikoff, Kurtz, et al regarding Plame? It all reads like DNC talking points. Even little Billy Kristol is caught up in putting a bad spin on it.

This a.m. on Fox, he said the WH is grim and running scared, and VP is going down. Well Kristol cut and ran from supporting the War, so it is no surprize that he is siding with the LLE on Plame.

Kristol is a big Pussy and should not be taken seriously anymore. His views are jaded by the Beltway. Me thinks he is full of himself, and is trying to be relevant again.

pollyusa

New information up at Rawstory

Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald's case tell RAW STORY that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald's probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson's name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation."

Those close to the investigation said in June 2003, Hannah was given orders by higher-ups in Cheney’s office to leak Plame’s covert status

TexasToast

David

Looks like you think the whole case is Rove’s “I forgot”. I don’t think so – not with all that redacted stuff in the court opinion. There is obviously more to this story than the defense lawyers are leaking.

Seems to me that the big difference between Clinton’s impeachment and the current brouhaha is the fact that blow jobs aren’t illegal (anymore) while outing a covert operative is under several legal theories. While Clinton gets impeached for covering up an embarrassment, these guys should walk because they “only” covered up a potential crime?

Jim E.

Raw Story (I have no idea how credible they are) is now reporting that John Hanna, an aide to Cheney, is the official who "flipped" and has been aiding FitzGerald. Raw Story claims Hanna says he was told by higher-ups to leak Plame's name and status in June 2003 in an effort to get Wilson (who hadn't yet written his NY Times op-ed) to shut up.

I have no idea if Raw Story is credible or if their account is accurate.

topsecretk9

Miller:

During a 12-minute speech, Miller defended her reporting and her decision to go to jail, saying she "could not risk a fishing expedition into all my intelligence sources."

If this is about a WH retaliation effort, why would Judy's OTHER INTELLIGENCE SOURCES matter, and um...I thought she couldn't recall who they were????

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/12933747.htm

Cheez-Wiz

It's because Joseph Hannah is a cooperating witness!!!

Wow.Forget Rove. He was clearly just a tool used by Cheney. This is going to be big.

Don-we may get to test your theories real soon!!!

Jim E.

BurbankErnie is channeling Fred Barnes. Barnes recently said that liberal bias of the media is so strong that even conservatives were trashing the anti-HIllary book. Now Kristol is liberally biased? Idiot.

JayDee

Hannah was given orders by higher-ups in Cheney’s office to leak Plame’s covert status

And a trillion labyrinthine, esoteric rightwing blog arguments fall moot.

Cheez-Wiz

Jim E. -don't worry about Rawstory.

Wilson fingers Hannah in his book and UPI reported he was being pressured months ago.

Cheez-Wiz

Hannah has deep AIPAC connections btw-so Espionage Act violations are not exactly alien transactions to him.

topsecretk9

Wilson fingers Hannah in his book and UPI reported he was being pressured months ago--

Ah yes, that reliably accurate Wilson.

jimhanavan

The Daily News tells us: "At least one source and one reporter who have testified in the probe said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is pursuing Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame affair." The several million people familiar with Miller's NYT's story could have written this sentence. The prosecutor asked her about Cheney. The "one reporter" = Miller. The "one source" = Fitzgerald, who asked the question. The answer, by the way, was "no."

Geek, Esq.

Hannah probably flipped months ago. He was facing heavy pressure way back when.

Jim E.

How in the world would Miller know if Cheney knew that Libby was meeting with her? She wouldn't. Her answer to the question is irrelevant.

I wonder if Hanna leaked to Miller. Here's hoping Miller gets a perjury indictment!

BurbankErnie

Jim E.

Plame is another gate you are hanging your hat on. Kristol's hat is there also, along with his anti-war beret, and his Meirs wig.

Just because I see Kristol as a Pussy, doesn't mean I equate him to a Liberal. He is just too full of himself.

And where did I mention Hillary and her book? Like I said, you cannot have a serious conversation with an LLE (Jim E.). They can never stay on topic and have no facts to work with, just Raw Story feelings.

Good luck with the Plame Affair Jim E. How did the DSM work out for you?

kim

Polly, did the sources say it was to leak her covert status or was it announce her involvement?
==================================================

pollyusa

Here's the UPI story from 2/04 that this on Hannah

"We believe that Hannah was the major player in this," one federal law-enforcement officer said

macranger

From Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 79 > § 1623 § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court:

"In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

Again, by what we know, charging either Rove or Libby with this charge would be nonsense.

don

Interesting - however, I would point out that John Hannah's name has been bandied about for a while with no corroboration in left blogosphere - wish there was something more substantial. MSM hasn't done much with it - but perhaps history has passed the major media by.... Now, only if Drudge puts it up should we accept it as fact :>

On the other hand, Hannah may be Novak's source - described as serious and not a gunslinger but he is from the WH so not how Novak described him.

This may explain the inquiry into Cheney's knowledge of leak.

Libby will be toast, toast, toast if Hannah says he got order from Libby.

Rove may survive this - so why muddy up a good case with a "b...t" case.

kim

The Dragon 'Leak Covertness' is still not dead. Why would Cheney want to leak that instead of just her involvement, and to point out the disinformation.
================================================

Jim E.

BurbankErnie was attempting "serious" conversation? Well, he does use lots of obscure initials. Wow. Serious, duuuuude.

JayDee

One thing that makes this dialogue so fascinating is that it really reveals the Party before Country dynamic that is poisoning our country.

Burbank Eddie's comment to Jim E., for instance, shows how it isn't government misconduct that concerns him, or even government misconduct creating a false case for war. It's beating the liberals that matters, not the rule of law, not the integrity of our democracy.

Yesterday, on the prior thread, I got handed a very triumphant explanation by cathyf that it did not matter HOW we got into this Iraq War, just that it could be justified using a very specific definition of national security. In other words, we as American citizens should now resign ourselves to letting elected and appointed elitists determine amongst themselves the meaning of our national security, screened from the public forum, and artificially sanctioned - through stovepiped and even forged intelligence - by a facade of democratic process.

The majority of Americans could care less about partisan politics. But they are about to get some very powerful lessons in what happens when arrogant public officials regard our democracy as their own private property. This is going to turn out to be a real blessing for America.

macranger

From Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 79 > § 1623 § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court:

"In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

Again, by what we know, charging either Rove or Libby with this charge would be nonsense.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame