Approaching My Quota

Mark Kleiman thinks I am approaching my alloted number of errors on the Plame case.  I have a response in "UPDATE II" to my post titled "We're Doing Our Honest Best".  This will repeat, with greater emphasis and clarity, a point made in the original post.

Comments

[Joe Mealyus]

I confess - I haven't been following this all that closely, but I'm really, really confused. Surely when Hogan says "the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime," by "crime" he means "alleged crime" or "potential crime," doesn't he? This whole thing has been very Lewis Carroll, but it's not *that* Lewis Carroll, is it? So when Fitzgerald says "we're doing our honest best to get to the bottom of whether a crime has been committed" there's no contradiction between him and Hogan, they're saying the exact same thing.

Kleiman seems to be saying that we can be certain a crime has been committed, not that we can be certain that they're looking into the question of whether a crime was committed - but maybe he means the latter, and is simply (like Hogan?) either not being careful with his language, or assuming we all know what he means.

I've tried looking at the law blogs (well, Althouse and Beldar) to see if this fine semantic point has been addressed there, and only found Paul Z. making the same point in an Althouse comment here...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/07/reporter-miller-goes-to-jail-judge.html#comments

...but no one else followed up on his point. My belief is that for the lawyers this is too much of a "duh" point to bother with, but then maybe I am missing something really obvious that makes this the dumbest blog comment of all time....

[Mac]

Uhmmm...

...for the Judge to *know* there was a crime he would have to know exactly who the leaker is, his/her job, his/her knowledge of the CIA's current policy on Plame, and exactly what he/she said. IF the judge knows all this there isn't any reason to compel Miller to testify.

[Paul Zrimsek]

It's a fair guess that Kleiman is sure a crime has been committed; he has been (for some reason) sure of that from the very beginning. If Hogan really did mean the same thing then he should, at the very least, be removed from this case at once. A lot of people seem not to have picked up on the prejudicial nature of his remark, but if an indictment does come down I doubt the defense team will overlook it as well.

Most likely Hogan meant something like possible crime, and failed to realize that he'd actually said something quite different. If so, he'll hopefully become aware of the misstatement soon (perhaps with our help!) and make haste to clear it up.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Is it a crime to introduce your wife as a CIA analyst, to Nick Kristoff and Walter Pincus, if they agree not to name her? ('The Kid' makes a very strong case--in comments on another JOM thread--that Wilson did just that, before Novak stumbled onto her)

If so, Wilson and Plame would be the targets of the investigation.

[Joe Mealyus]

"Most likely Hogan meant something like possible crime, and failed to realize that he'd actually said something quite different."

Now that it appears I'm not crazy (for once), I think it's more likely he didn't think (or care whether, perhaps) anyone would interpret him literally. I think he was speaking for emphasis - not to emphasize "proven crime" over "alleged crime" but to emphasize "alleged crime" over "alleged non-crime."

[Gilson]

Kleiman attempts to transform a morsel of obiter dicta into an ex cathedra statement.

This somewhat strained polemic does not, however, bear close scrutiny.

For example, in the more measured context of the opinion of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling against Miller and Cooper's privilege claims, the court notes: "On the record before us, there is at least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one or both journalists received information concerning the identity of a covert operative of the United States from government employees acting in violation of the law by making the disclosure." (pdf)

In his separate opinion, Tatel goes no further than this, speaking only of an "alleged crime" involving the "alleged exposure" of an "alleged covert agent" via "possibly illegal" leaks.

In short, in a case in which the court was addressing the preliminary question of whether a privilege exists, the ultimate question of whether a crime was committed was plainly (and properly) left unresolved.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. I think it would be vastly amusing if the "crime" were that Wilson introduced his wife as a CIA operative.

2. I think it would be even more amusing, and frankly probable, that Rove is simply incidental to all this and has little to do with the case at all.

Really is there actually any real proof of Rove's involvement? Other than the parsing of his lawyer's comments and second hand inferences?

Regardless of how it turns out, I figure the most amusing aspect is watching people struggle with both the logic of it all, and the lack of anything in the way of concrete proof.

[ArminTamzarian]

Trouble is, none of these people could be guilty of the crime, since it requires that they either (a) have access to classified information about such covert agents in the course of their jobs, or (b) engage in a pattern of activity to expose covert agents to willfully damage national security, or something like that. Then there's the exception removing liability from a covert agent who reveals her own identity. Actual knowledge of the law, however, has never been a prerequesite for being a Leftist hack.

[Geek, Esq.]

Expect Karl Rove to either be arrested or resign this week:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

My guess is that he fibbed to the grand jury.

[ArminTamzarian]

Geek:

$20 on that?

[ed]

Hmmm.

Still nothing in the way of proof, just baseless, useless, allegations.

More bullshit please, there's not enough already.

[kim]

I've halted casting about for the trail to Joe, and am grazing in the sparse field of known facts. Soon the effluent of my digestively intuiting these tidbits will be produced for all to admire.

My guts say it's Joe.
================================

[richard mcenroe]

TM — Doesn't the Kyoto Accord allow you to buy "error credits" from net error importers?

[Jeff]

I of course am desperate to hear what TM has to say about the latest developments. In the meanwhile, a few thoughts.

First, TM, I don't think your official editorial position is necessarily so well supported by Pincus' story. Pincus himself thought the info that Wilson's trip was arranged by his wife was untrue, but he says he didn't think his source was committing a criminal act. Now, let's say the latter point is not just Pincus' rationalization for publishing in October. Let's say he really believes it. So what? Maybe Pincus was wrong. Maybe Pincus didn't realize that he was being used in a particular way. I'm not saying he necessarily was. All I'm saying is that Pincus' own beliefs about what his source was doing are not definitive of what his source was doing. Right?

Second, I want to go on record with my opinion that right wingers like Jonah Goldberg who think the outcome is going to be whiplash for the left think that the finger will be pointed not at Plame and/or Wilson (as some here think) but at Colin Powell. I don't know whether he thinks that just on the basis of public info -- the subpoena for phone records from Air Force One from when Bush and presumably Powell were in Africa etc -- or if Cliff May or someone else is feeding him inside info.

Third, there is some hilarious "argumentation" going on in this thread. Armin outs himself as a Leftist hack with his lack of actual knowledge of the law. Armin, I would like you to find the part of the law that supports your (b), specifically the part about how the people involved, who are government officials, must show a pattern of activity to be guily of a crime. Show me the law. I dare you.
As for your (a), I have a genuine question for you all. Would the members of the White House Iraq Group not have the requisite access? What about the chief of staff of the vice president of the U.S.A.?

ed, when you say "nothing in the way of proof," do you mean "nothing that could contribute to proof" or "nothing that amounts to proof"? And what do you mean by "proof"? Is it the same as "evidence"? And are things "in the way of proof" and "baseless, useless allegations" jointly exhaustive of the possibilities? Finally, in what sense are we looking at baseless allegations? Does Kleiman have no basis? I could have sworn he had some.

I of course have no definitive idea who if anyone is going to be indicted for what. But ed, if we take out the time constraint, since you seem so sure of yourself, what odds would you give me on the $20 bet? 10 to 1? I'd take it. Let me know.

[richard mcenroe]

Ed — And notice Newsweek just broke its brand-spankin'-shiny new editorial guidelines by quoting an anonymous source with no secondary verification. Took them what, a month?

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. "ed, when you say "nothing in the way of proof," "

What I mean is something that isn't inferred by overly parsing the comments by Rove's lawyer. How about this, proof = something, anything, that would be admissable in a criminal court of law.

Now this could be a document with a verifiable provenance. This could be eyewitness testimony, other than second-hand and hearsay. This could be physical evidence such as a tape recording of a conversation.

I.e. something logically more worthwhile than utter nonsense.

2. "Ed — And notice Newsweek just broke its brand-spankin'-shiny new editorial guidelines by quoting an anonymous source with no secondary verification. Took them what, a month?"

Frankly I discount any story based on an anonymous source. My feeling, with no overt evidence of course, which puts it on par with this discussion over Rove's complicity, is that a significant fraction of all anonymous sources and quotes are simply fabricated.

What I'd like to see is for someone to audit a major newspaper. Take a 1 year period within the last decade, search through every single story or article, and then require the newspaper to identify the actual person quoted or used as a source.

With Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and many many others, as examples, it's clear that fabricating such sources and quotes is extremely easy.

Then there's that recent example of a National Guard officer writing a NYT op-ed who had an editor append spurious quotes to the piece.

Every day that passes is, IMHO, a wonderful day. It's because we come closer to the day journalism dies.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"I of course have no definitive idea who if anyone is going to be indicted for what. But ed, if we take out the time constraint, since you seem so sure of yourself, what odds would you give me on the $20 bet? 10 to 1? I'd take it. Let me know."

What *exactly* would be the bet? And, if you get 10-1 odds on one aspect, then I will get 10-1 odds on another.

So define the bet, exactly. I enjoy a good debate, and good wagers. But I never buy a pig in a poke.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Well this is interesting.

Did I say take a 1 year audit of a major newspaper? Perhaps we should limit it to 1 month. Or maybe 1 week at this rate.

[AlanDownunder]

"We're doing our honest best to get to the bottom of whether a crime has been committed."

Don't run this Fitzgerald quote too hard as rebuttal of Hogan. "Whether a crime has been committed" is simply any grand jury's ultimate question - and prosecutors (well, sound ones) don't overstate their case in public.

[Jeff]

ed, I'll skip the category mistake, and the fact that, yeah, it's tough to figure out what's going on when you have a secret grand jury proceeding with a prosecutor with considerably more integrity than Ken Starr. Yeah. The bet is more interesting, so here's what I propose *exactly*: you give me 10 to 1 odds on Karl Rove getting indicted as a result of the grand jury proceeding conducted by special prosecutor Fitzgerald. That's it. Leave out the resigning issue. Merely whether Karl Rove is going to be indicted: Karl gets indicted, I win; Karl doesn't get indicted, you win. $20 bet. Surely you'll jump at the chance, since all you've seen pointing it that direction is "utter nonsense," "baseless, useless allegations" and "[b]ullshit." Money where your mouth is? As for my part, I'm on record here as saying, with regard to Karl being indicted (at least with regard to IIPA), probably not, but who knows. And I've nowhere expressed anything like the level of certainty that you have. So I'm not giving you 10 to 1 odds on anything I can come up with. So what do you say?

Mention of the IIPA reminds me, I still haven't heard back from Armin on what the law actually says with regard to a pattern of activity, and most importantly with regard to whom.

[Crank]

It's good to know that, under our system of justice, a judge can now convict without trial.

Query: If, say, Judge Sentelle had made a similar remark about Bill Clinton in 1998, what would have been the response from Kleiman and his ilk? Do we really even need to answer that question?

(Also, I missed an important point somewhere: was this an oral remark in open court, or a written opinion? If the former, it's much more likely that the judge just left out some of the usual disclaimers ("alleged," etc.). We oft speak with less precision than we write).

[Crank]

Also, I await Kleiman's demand for a retraction from anyone who contradicts this.

[Lion]

Not sure I understand exactly what Jeff is saying about who gets what odds in whose favor. But I will state conclusively that Karl Rove will not be indicted, and I will put money on it if there is a reliable mechanism for doing so. Money or no, I will dance my usual gloating whipsong of joy when all those who have been hoping for such an indictment see their hopes fully and finally dashed. That is what is going to happen, and all the ranting in the world won't change it one bit. Too bad; you lose.

[ArminTamzarian]

Sorry I can't respond to your whims faster, Jeff. I do have other things to do, you know. Next time, try ringing your little bell when you want something.

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.

FYI,
since 2001, Mr. Rove has served as Senior Advisor to the President, overseeing strategic planning, political affairs, public liaison, and intergovernmental affairs at the White House." That doesn't seem like a position giving him access to sources and methods background, does it?

Idiot.

[Jeff]

Look, I am skeptical that Rove will be indicted, and like everybody the best I can do is try to connect some dots based on the best information we have about a secret investigation. Lion, forget the bets if you want, given my poor explanation. More interestingly, what's the basis of your certainty that Rove won't be indicted?

As for the law, aside from the fact that, best as I can tell, a pattern of activities just means multiple acts with a common purpose and objective, as I read it, all the law requires is that a person have authorized access to classified information. Maybe I am in idiot, but I find it hard to believe Rove and Libby didn't have access to classified information. Maybe they didn't read about Plame in any classified documents, but that's not necessary, as I read the law. But again, maybe I'm just an idiot.

Which leads me to my latest guess about what's going on. There is something strange going on with regard to Rove's strategy of insisting that he didn't identify Valerie Plame/Wilson by name. Maybe he's just trying to avoid an indictment for perjury or lying to the FBI, having chosen his words very carefully if somewhat misleadingly the first time around with the FBI and/or the grand jury. But maybe it has something to do with what the International Herald Tribune reported back in 2004: "At the same time, Fitzgerald is said to be investigating whether the disclosure of Plame's identity came after someone discovered her name among classified documents circulating at the upper echelons of the White House." That is, of course, maddeningly vague. But maybe Rove's insistence that he did not deal with Plame's name is his effort to avoid indictment under the IIPA, specifically (a) or even (b). Rove can just say that the proof that he didn't violate IIPA is that he didn't know what the classified documents contained, namely her name. (There is something relevant here about the Plame v. Wilson issue.) Since the law clearly covers the disclosure of *any* information identifying the agent, Rove is obviously not claiming that merely disclosing her relationship to Wilson but not her name gets him off the hook in that regard.

[TM]

Don't run this Fitzgerald quote too hard as rebuttal of Hogan. "Whether a crime has been committed" is simply any grand jury's ultimate question

Fine, so how hard should we let Kleiman run the judge's comment?

I dispute the notion that we must impute caution and judgement to Fitzgerald, but not Hogan.

All I'm saying is that Pincus' own beliefs about what his source was doing are not definitive of what his source was doing. Right?

Yes, but - folks who insist that Novak was a witting pawn of a thuggish conspiracy will have a hard time with Pincus.

OTOH, if you think it was a slick, well-rehearsed media manipulation, both Novak and Pincus could be explained, but then, why do we think they will have been stupid enough to break a law that offers lots of loopholes?

[Cecil Turner]

"I dispute the notion that we must impute caution and judgement to Fitzgerald, but not Hogan."

I think you're on firm ground here. For one thing, the Judge is trying to make a tangential point (the difference between whistleblowing and a criminal leak). For another, placing multiple qualifiers (e.g., "alleged," "potential," "possible") in a sentence tends to be distracting, and people generally try to avoid it. He's got one qualifier in there--probably slightly misplaced--and in any event likely intended it to cover the rather obvious fact that no crime has been proved.

"Maybe they didn't read about Plame in any classified documents, but that's not necessary, as I read the law."

The way I read it, it is required:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent . . . Or: "Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent . . . " [emphasis added]

There's a third clause, which requires the "pattern of activities," but essentially the two possibilities are as Armin noted above.

[Jeff]

Cecil - But then what's the difference between (a) and (b)? Doesn't (b) leave open the possibility either that you read something that leads you to figure out the identity of a covert agent, or that you get it from someone else, for instance. I suppose it depends on how you interpret "as a result of." Consider the following scenario: Say you're Karl Rove, and you have authorized access to classified information. There is classified information that contains Plame's name circulating at the highest echelons of the White House. It's plausible that Rove either reads this document or hears about it from someone else. Say he only hears about it from someone else. (Let's call him Colin Powell, and say that he makes the connection reading some docs while traveling in Africa. He calls Rove and says that Plame is Wilson's wife and so on, assuming all along that Rove has classified access.) Rove then passes the information that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that she authorized Wilson's trip (which appears to be false, by the way) along to someone without classified acccess. Violation of the IIPA, (b)? Perhaps -- though of course Rove, like those bad guys in the TV shows, can say that it can't be proved. A powerful suggestion that it can't be proved is that Plame was her CIA name, and there is no evidence he ever knew her name, hence no proof he saw the documents and no proof he knew her covert status, even from having learned it from someone else who saw the documents. Or something like that. How's that? Or am I just being an idiot again?

In this scenario, to respond to TM, Rove is smart enough to break a law that offers lots of loopholes. Again, I'm not saying I think this is what happened. I think it's what might have happened. I think it was slick, well-rehearsed media manipulation -- sorry to be an earnest liberal, but that does appear to have been one of the major briefs of the WHIG, no? -- but I'm undecided whether Novak was a witting or unwitting pawn. I'm unsure too of whether Rove et al actually wanted any particular information, and especially Plame's covert status, to be published. But again as I read the law, that's irrelevant. All a violation in that regard requires is the passing of any information pertaining to the identity of the agent to someone without authorized access to classified info.

I'm happy for anyone to shoot holes in this set of hypotheses, pointing out what we know that it doesn't cohere with. I'm mostly just trying to puzzle out what Luskin thinks he's doing insisting so hard on Rove not having named Plame as Plame.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"The bet is more interesting, so here's what I propose *exactly*: you give me 10 to 1 odds on Karl Rove getting indicted as a result of the grand jury proceeding conducted by special prosecutor Fitzgerald. That's it. Leave out the resigning issue. Merely whether Karl Rove is going to be indicted: Karl gets indicted, I win; Karl doesn't get indicted, you win. $20 bet."

Ok, that's specific enough.

But I want my own 10-1 odds on a counter bet. $20 that ultimately the person implicated as revealing Plame's status is Wilson.

1. If Rove is indicted and Wilson is not implicated as the original source, then you win $220.

2. If Rove is not indicted and Wilson is not implicated as the original source, then no money changes hands.

3. If Rove is not indicted AND Wilson is implicated as the original source, then I win $400.

Frankly I say "implicated" because I really don't think any law has been broken. And besides, the most likely outcome is #2, which means this bets finishes out even.

Willing?

[ed]

Hmmm.

Arrrgh! I shouldn't post late at night.

#3. $220, not $400.

Math. It's tough when you're over 40.

[Jeff]

ed - It's hard to imagine you're not trying to wriggle out of a corner with your counter-proposal. What on earth are the criteria for assessing "ultimately the person implicated as revealing Plame's status is Wilson"? There are all sorts of problems with this. "Ultimately"? "Implicated?" What counts as a revelation? I don't see why you won't just stick with the 10-to-1 odds on Rove being indicted. It seems to me you were quite certain of yourself on this count, and I would think you would therefore jump at the opportunity to make an easy $20. I am, I will admit, doubtful that Wilson will, say, be indicted. But not 10-to-1 sure he won't be. Moreover, I saw the hatchet job the Senate report did on Wilson -- which is NOT to say that Wilson is unassailable. But that Senate report is really ridiculous. Roberts' appendix on HIS conclusions that he could not get the Democrats to agree to shows the same kind of misleading rhetoric that the White House is now currently suffering for. So "implicated" makes me queasy. How about "indicted"? I still won't give you 10-to-1, but we could work something out. What do you say to a little more specificity, a little more concreteness, and a little more money-where-your-mouth-is?

As for your math skills, far be it from me to criticize. Though it is pretty funny that your alleged math mistake worked out pretty well in your own favor.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. I am certain that Rove isn't going to be indicted and there's no wriggling there at all.

What I am doing is providing a counter-bet that evens the odds. Thus my maximum loss is $220, and my maximum gain is $220, thus they somewhat cancel out.

What? You actually think Wilson is going to be fingered as the source of all this nonsense?

2. "How about "indicted"?"

ok, "indicted". Does that make you happy? And how could it make you queasy? Wilson the one single person nobody is talking about.

3. "As for your math skills, far be it from me to criticize. Though it is pretty funny that your alleged math mistake worked out pretty well in your own favor."

Well if I'm going to make a math mistake, then making it in my favor does have a certain charm to it.

4. "I still won't give you 10-to-1, but we could work something out. What do you say to a little more specificity, a little more concreteness, and a little more money-where-your-mouth-is?"

What? You won't give me 10-1 on **Wilson** being idicted for outing his own wife?

Well I could point the finger at Ramses the Great, but I think 10-1 odds are a little low for him. :)

[Cecil Turner]

"Cecil - But then what's the difference between (a) and (b)? Doesn't (b) leave open the possibility either that you read something that leads you to figure out the identity of a covert agent, or that you get it from someone else, for instance."

Sorry, I missed this one. (B) does appear to mean learning about it other than reading it from a document that identifies covert agents (e.g., second-hand from someone who has direct access). If that's your point, I think you're right. But the perpetrator must still obtain the information "as a result of having authorized access to classified information" (which I believe was Armin's contention). And such access would certainly not normally be extended to White House staffers.

In this case, we have a pretty good idea where the information came from (the "INR memo"), and it's obviously a security lapse on the part of CIA/INR. If it's as described (Plame's covert status not mentioned), subsequent use of that information may well be innocent (though it's impossible to tell without access to the document). The "name" thing is obviously not a legal defense (except perhaps to establish motive), and probably goes more toward the political discussion--which TM covers in better detail here.

[Jeff]

Cecil - Thanks for the reply, here and on the other thread. Sounds like you're right about the name thing, which still puzzles me, though I still suspect, as you suggest here, that Rove claiming he did not know her name is partly intended to render the idea that he knew she was covert less plausible. On the question of access to classified info, Rove is no normal White House staffer (which is not definitive, of course).

ed - One clarification: I didn't say "indictment" of Wilson made me queasy, I said "implication" of Wilson did, and that for the reason that look at what the Senate report was willing to engage in to implicate him in this or that. I still don't understand why you're interested in evening the odds, since you're certain Rove won't be indicted. With such certainty, what do the odds matter? For my part, I'm less certain about the whole thing, since it is after all a secret investigation. And of course it's far from true that nobody is talking about Wilson. That's just about all many many right-wingers are talking about, including some on this site -- and I'm not going to say with any certainty that they're out of their minds, though I am skeptical. To take another example that shows that who people are talking about doesn't mean anything for what Fitzgerald is up to, I suspect attention is going to turn soon to Powell and his role in all this. See, for instance, Isikoff's comments on Inside Politics yesterday. The point is, if we all start talking about Powell soon, it won't be because anything changed in Fitzgerald's investigation. So it looks like we're going to have to make it a gentlemen's bet, which is what I suspect you wanted all along. You're certain enough to state you're certain, but not certain enough to risk losing two hundred dollars. I can understand that. Gentleman's bet?

[kim]

I'm certain that I don't know for certain what Fitzgerald's up to. I am certain what Rove and Wilson were up to, though.
==============================

[Cecil Turner]

"Thanks for the reply . . . Rove is no normal White House staffer . . ."

You're very welcome. Concur that Rove is not a normal staffer, and it's much more likely than usual that he'd learn about something second-hand. (In fact, early speculation was that one of the NSA staffers might have passed the Plame connection along to him . . . which, if true, would almost certainly have been criminal.) However, the identity of undercover CIA officers is something that few at CIA HQ need to know about . . . and surely nobody outside. Combine that with the timing of the INR memo (coinciding with the Africa trip in early July 03), and it looks far more likely that's the source. If so, the main security lapse was in the meeting and report, not in its subsequent release.

[Jeff]

Cecil -- I'm a little confused: what meeting are you referring to? The one regarding sending someone to Niger? Or the White House Iraq Group? If the former, why would you suspect the security lapse was in the meeting, rather than the seemingly much more likely scenario that it had to do with the use made of the memo in July 2003? I strongly suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about Colin Powell's potential role in all of this from the right soon. And perhaps other people on board Air Force One in Africa in July 2003.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. "I still don't understand why you're interested in evening the odds, since you're certain Rove won't be indicted. With such certainty, what do the odds matter? For my part, I'm less certain about the whole thing, since it is after all a secret investigation. And of course it's far from true that nobody is talking about Wilson."

Oh well I suppose it's not worth the hassle to continue this. I'll accept the bet you outlined previously:

$20, 10-1 odds. I win $20 if Rove isn't indicted. You win $200 if he is.

I was rather hoping to win the $220, because I think that Wilson will be ultimately fingered as the target of this grand jury.

As for people talking about Wilson, to my knowledge I'm practically the only person floating the proposition that Wilson is the one who outed Plame.

Did you want to set a time limit on this? I.e. 1 year for the indictment?

[ed]

Hmmm.

"You're certain enough to state you're certain, but not certain enough to risk losing two hundred dollars. I can understand that. Gentleman's bet?"

I'm more than certain enough to bet real money. I was just rather hoping to weasel more into the "win" column if things turn out the way I think they will.

*shrug* and what the hell, I've blown far more than $200 for worse reasons.

[Jeff]

ed- My original proposition was, indictment as a result of the grand jury investigation being led by Fitzgerald. But we can make it a year -- though I'm not at all certain the investigation will be concluded by then. For what it's worth, at the moment I think less than before that Rove is going to be indicted. But I guess we've got a deal.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Hello? Do we have a bet?

[ed]

Hmmm.

Ahhh. Ok. Frankly I included the bit about the "year" as an out for you. Frankly we can make unlimited in time, it really doesn't bother me at all.

But I figure a year is enough for the investigation to be completed and for indictments to be handed out. Note I didn't mention "convictions", trials these days tend to take years to complete so a 1 year limit would be meaningless.

But indictments within the year are easily doable. And frankly I don't think anybody is going to remember this bet more than a year on.

[gay doctor]

Good place to found many answers http://doctorhorny.yeublog.com/