Powered by TypePad

« "Normal Impulses" | Main | Save Mark Kleiman's Hair! »

July 14, 2005

Comments

JDM

checking w/rest of parallel universel, Yahoo has this up:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050713/ap_on_bi_ge/enron_broadband_1;_ylt=AvMsnXoQWL8M1CycCKgdmPFv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--
or http://shorl.com/figovafrytreli

HOUSTON - Federal prosecutors bought witnesses with immunity and then twisted facts to make their case against five former executives of Enron Corp.'s defunct broadband unit, lawyers for two of the defendants said Wednesday in closing arguments.

"They're on a hunt; they made up their minds," said Tony Canales, attorney for Scott Yeager, a former Enron Broadband Services strategist.

so what's the deal with all these Texas guys being so persecuted? Pretty sad.

I mean, who ever believed any of that Enron rumour mongering crap anyway? And everyone knows it was California's fault, and they just made up all that stuff, right?

This kind of slimy prosecution just underminds the presidents agenda to expand the free market agenda. I'm sick of it I tell ya', just sick of it.

Fresh Air

Jukebox--

More drivel from you. The 5-year business was clearly written into the statute will foreknowledge that this sort of thing could happen, as you will see if read the amici brief I linked to earlier. It wasn't a loophole, it is the letter of the law--a law, by the way, that has been applied exactly one other time in the 22 years it has been in existence.

peapies

just heard Hugh Hewitt say Wilson was on CNN and said his wife was NOT undercover.

no transcript yet...could someone smell the "target" coming their way? Was todays news conference a chance to "Ken Starr" Fitzgerald!

no transcript as of yet

jukeboxgrad

TALL

"passing information gleaned from one reporter on to another reporter is not 'leaking.'"

If this is all Rove did, and if there's nothing wrong with this, why did he have to hide behind a curtain ("double super secret background")? Why has he lied about his own behavior?

"It's also been acknowledged by several reporters that Plame's identity wasn't much of a secret"

It doesn't matter if there was cocktail party talk about Plame's identity. Rove still had no right to say what he did about Plame. There's a very important distinction to be drawn between the information being the subject of cocktail party whispers as compared with the information appearing on pages of major publications.

FRESH

"a law, by the way, that has been applied exactly one other time in the 22 years it has been in existence"

I'm well-aware of that. My point, if you've been paying attention, is that this is a question of morality, not just legality. A lot of energy is being spent claiming Rove isn't a criminal. If that's the test, your standards are too low.

"if read the amici brief I linked to earlier"

As Martin astutely pointed out: "stop and think about the implications of the courts rejecting 36 briefs saying no crime was committed."

martin

onh come on peapies...you're delusional.
if Hugh Hewitt said that he has finally snapped.

Talldave-you are either lying or spouting stuff you don't know anything about. Name the journalists you're talking about. Unless it's Andrea Mitchell-cuz that's a Powerline lie Maguire himself gave up on.

Did you know that Novak himself has acknowledged she was undercover?

peapies

whats delusional about that? If he said it, he said it.

ArminTamzarian

OT: A senior Chinese official said China would launch a first-strike nuclear attack against the United States if we intervene in their invasion of Taiwan, and you people are still arguing about some ugly bitch in Vanity Fair?

JDM

Fresh Air @ July 14, 2005 03:33 PM:
The 5-year business was clearly written into the statute will foreknowledge that this sort of thing could happen, as you will see if read the amici brief I linked to earlier. It wasn't a loophole, it is the letter of the law--a law, by the way, that has been applied exactly one other time in the 22 years it has been in existence.

you just may be right about that, Air.
Good thing we have... (taaadaahhh...) The Espionage Act:
text is here:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

and explanation for dummies here:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2003/10/the_espionage_act.php

John Dean provides a little Espionage Act history, as established by that great Frenchman, Ronald Reagan:

The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.

In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.

Although the photos compromised no national security secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question: Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?

The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.

And we all recall "Judge" Starr's solemn treatises on the seriousness of perjury. (t'heehee)

There's also very concievable perjury charges, going well beyond Rove BTW. Frankly, I think Junior may have to issue blanket pardons for the whole damn white house.


peapies

The whole juiciness here

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

Patrick R. Sullivan

According to Joe Wilson's own book all Karl Rove would have had to do to learn about Valerie's CIA job would have been to bump into Bob Novak on a street corner. On July 8th, six days before the column appeared in print, a friend of Wilson, who was a perfect stranger to Novak had him tell him:

“Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.”

And Wilson waited two days before he talked to Novak about it. In the meantime though, Joe called Eason Jordan and gave him the details. Was Jordan authorized to receive the information, but not Karl Rove?

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2005/07/disclosure-for-me-but-not-for-thee.html

peapies

another for more knowledgeable

BLITZER: All right. Let's go through some of the charges that have been made against you. For example, on Tuesday I interviewed Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican Party, and he said that -- let me reed to you specifically what he said:

"I think, according to what we learned this past weekend, I think what Karl Rove said turned out to be right. Joe Wilson's story was not accurate. It was based on a false premise and he tried to discourage the writing of an inaccurate story based on the false premise," that false premise being that Vice President Dick Cheney asked you to go to Niger to investigate these charges of enriched uranium shipments going to Iraq.

WILSON: Well, of course, if you look back at the original article I wrote, I said it was the Vice President's Office who expressed an interest in following up on this particular matter.

The vice president himself later said that he himself had asked about it. I've never said it was the vice president who sent me. It's clear in the article and, indeed, it's clear in an interview that you did with me last year. And if you run the tape on that, you'll see that what the statement that they used was chopped out of the...

BLITZER: But, basically, you still hold to the notion that the whole idea of sending someone to Niger originated in the Vice President's Office?

WILSON: No, no, no, no, no. The idea of sending someone to Niger originated in response to a request from the Office of the Vice President. That's how I was briefed. That required an answer.

The decision was made by the operations people at the CIA, after a meeting that I had with the analytical community, to ask me if I would go and help answer some of the questions that still remained so that we would better understand the situation.

And let me also say that raising the question was perfectly legitimate. Indeed, it was an important question to raise. The vice president would have been derelict in not raising it.

Had, in fact, there been evidence of uranium sales from Niger to Iraq, it would have demonstrated conclusively that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. The fact that there wasn't evidence to that effect should have reassured the U.S. government that, at least on this side, there was no evidence.

BLITZER: All right. So at least you agree -- and I know you have in the past as well -- that the vice president never directly asked you to go or asked that anyone go, namely his staff just wanted some answers and it was the CIA's decision to then send -- dispatch -- someone to try to get some firsthand information?

WILSON: That's correct. And I've said that in my op-ed, and I've said it in an interview here, and I've said it every time since.

peapies

again...lets say it...frog march

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

HH

Somerby wades back into this and does more damage to Marshall.

BumperStickerist

Hmmm... let's see how that jibes with Joe Wilson, circa 2004, in an interview with Keith Olberman.


pulling quotes in order with context ..

-link in signature -

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4907409/


WILSON: My understanding from a number of different people who have come to speak to me as I have been at the intersection of the information highway on this is that shortly after I appeared on CNN commenting that I thought the U.S. government knew more about this Niger business than the State Department spokesman was letting on.

There was a meeting in the suite of offices of the Vice President chaired perhaps by the Vice President but more likely by Mr. Libby at which it was decided to do a quote “workup” on me.

In other words run an intelligence operation on me to find out everything that they could about me and my family. That would explain how, within two days of my article appearing in the “New York Times” Mr. Novak would have the name of my wife and her employment.

---------------

and this

---------------

OLBERMANN: Give me an idea and obviously we don‘t have all the time in the world to do it and you do it in your book. But give me an idea how secret your wife‘s secret life in the CIA really was.

WILSON: Well, as any of my friends around Washington will tell you, nobody knew what she did.

In fact there were very, very few people outside her immediate family and myself who knew that she had an undercover status at the time that she was—before she was exposed.

------

hmmmm - using the JBG-patented method of inferring Great Meaning into transcripts of live events ... 'at the time' 'before she was' ...


sounds like Rove is off the hook as Rove did not mention anything about undercover status.

nikita demosthenes

Tom:

Two questions:

1. When Joe Wilson went to Niger on behalf of the CIA, wouldn't he have signed a document saying he would not disclose or discuss the matter publicly? Wouldn't this be standard procedure? If so, then why isn't Wilson breaking the law - or at least CIA regulations - everytime he runs his mouth (and writes op-ed pieces and books) about his trip?

2. Doesn't the CIA - and the Federal Government generally - have rules against nepotism? If so, why isn't Valerie Plame and her supervisory chain at Langley in trouble for sending her house-husband, Joe Wilson, on the Niger "investigation."

And why isn't the mainstream press asking the above simple questions?

-nikita demosthenes

P.S. (Bonus Question). Don't you think the real explanation for the whole Plame story is the Left's desire to discredit Rove? They did the same thing with Newt Gingrich. Any effective Republican - e.g., Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove - is targeted by the Left to try to diminish their future effectiveness.

Rove may work for future Republican candidates. If he does, he'll beat the Democrat candidate like he always does. The Left knows this. This is why one of their main agenda items for Bush's second term is to tarnish Rove's reputation. They hope this may discourage future Republican candidates from using Rove as their political strategist. This is the entire story behind these endless attacks on Rove based on the Joe Wilson non-story.

Jeff

TM - Thanks for the response, but I think I didn't make myself clear. You wrote, "But Wilson's op-ed and public comments weren't controversial because Cheney "authorized" his trip - they were controversial because, in Wilson's telling, Cheney had asked the CIA about Saddam, Niger and uranium, had received a conclusive response of "nothing there", and had then ignored the response." So why the need to discredit Wilson at all? Why not say that no response had been received, the CIA blew it?

Second, you say the pushback was "an attempt to "discredit" Wilson by pointing out that he was wrong on many key details." First, they didn't go after many key details -- and to say that Wilson actually strengthened their case is just bs. But most importantly, the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and may have had anything to do whatsoever with Wilson's trip is not only not a key detail -- it is totally irrelevant to Wilson's claims. Yet they did it anyway. That's not rebuttal.

And let me say it again: the alleged importance of Wilson's wife has changed over time with successive Republican efforts. First, it was to explain why the report was not taken seriously -- which, by the way, would not be an argument you would make if you genuinely thought the report bolstered your case (and please do not cite the SSCI report on this count - it is just part of the pushback in this regard). Then it was to undermine the legitimacy of Wilson's trip per se. Now it is to compare what happened with what Wilson said afterward. And as for the nature of the smear, Rove himself is reported to have been quite frank about it.

"Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson."

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html

As for the legal questions, we're going to have to see. But you might check out what TM has to say in the update to this post regarding what "served" means. Second, the IIPA is not necessarily the only law in play here (indeed, I suspect it may no longer be in play at all). But again, we'll just have to see.

TM, if you haven't seen it, you might want to check out Murray Waas' article from this Tuesday, July 12 at http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/.

Finally, Richard McEnroe, I really really want you to send me a link or a transcript or something of the Andrea Mitchell moment. I'm dying to see it -- really -- and I distrust the game of telephone being played with it, not because I doubt it exists, but because it is important to see what she actually says. Already, as you recount it, it is significantly different from what I take to be its "original" third-hand form at powerline. So please find it for me.

Fresh Air

Juke--

Martin's point is wrong: The judge did not affirm that "a crime was committed." The judge rejected the amici brief as unpersuasive vis a vis whether Judith Miller was in contempt of court for not revealing her source.

The grand jury hasn't finished its work, and Patrick Fitzgerald is the man who will decide what charges, if any, to bring. In the meantime, the judge has ordered Ms. Miller to comply with the subpeona or face the pokey.

I just find the whole brief terribly ironic given the bloviating on the editorial pages of the NYT over this.

peapies


And we're back with the former U.S. ambassador, Joe Wilson. His wife is the former CIA operative whose name was linked to reporters, possibly illegally.

Let's talk a little bit about the politics of this. On September 30th, 2003, you were quoted in The Washington Post as saying, "at the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

That's almost two years ago you were saying Karl Rove should be arrested. On the basis of what were you saying it then?

WILSON: Well, it was a statement that I'd made at a meeting in Seattle. And as my wife later told me, she thought I'd gone a little over the top, so I took the handcuffs off. But I believed then and I believe now that -- and I know that Karl Rove was, in fact, engaged in pushing the Novak story, including calling a reporter and saying, "Wilson's wife is fair game."

I find that to be an outrageous abuse of power from a senior White House official, certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House. In handcuffs? Probably not. Out of handcuffs? Certainly.

BLITZER: But you don't want to name that reporter who told you that?

WILSON: It was Chris Matthews of "Hardball."

BLITZER: He said that he had spoken with...

WILSON: He called me up as soon as he got off the phone. He called me up and he said, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says your wife is fair game."

BLITZER: Do you believe that Karl Rove committed a crime?

WILSON: I don't know. That's in the hands of the special counsel. Clearly, the CIA, in referring it to the Justice Department, believed that a possible crime needed to be investigated. And that is what set off the investigation and that is where we are now.

Two years later, after the president had said he wanted everybody to cooperate with the Justice Department investigation, we've had to go up to the Supreme Court to get the release of the confidentiality waiver for a journalist. We've got one journalist who has been through agony before he was released and we have another journalist languishing in jail. It is time for those sources to step forward and accept responsibility for what they've said to these journalists.

Rider

George Bush and Karl Rove have been poster boys for Politics Over Policy for five years now.

But it's Come To Jesus Time for George Bush now. A person or persons -- who surely must be known to the President -- compromised classified information involving an entire network of American and foreign agents. If they didn't, the CIA would never have brought a complaint to the FBI and the appeals court would never have backed up the judge's contempt orders. George Bush has now to decide if there comes a time when he lays political calculations aside - steps away from Karl Rove - and does what's right for America, or whether come hell or high water he's going to just keep dancing with the guy that brung him.

Is George Bush an honorable man? Does George Bush have any decency left? Those are the questions yet to be answered.

I know what his father would do. And you do too.

Fresh Air

Rider--

Politics over policy. That's a laugh. The Democrats just wasted a couple of hours on the Senate floor trying to add silly amendments to the Homeland Security Bill.

Both Georges have more honor in their little fingers than Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Barabara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and Sheets Byrd combined.

The only question to be answered is why did Joe Wilson out his own wife?

Toby Petzold

Will someone please tell the Bush-hating Left to quit acting like they care about the intelligence community? It's a joke, right? These people are up in arms about "treason" and "jeopardizing" the lives of our agents because it suits them politically to appear concerned for our Government's intelligence apparati.

Rider

Oh, all the morality and decency and honor is on your side of the aisle, isn't it? How could Karl Rove have possibly done anything to hurt America, if he's a Republican, right?

Have we come to this?

Are we so polarized that we politicize the compromising of American intelligence and look the other way because even though IT HURTS AMERICA it was done to support our favorite politics by a supporter of our favorite president? God help us, if that's where we are.

Syl

Just a FYI for those all excited by the fact that the CIA made a referral to the Justice Department over the Plame thing.

The Justice Department receives about 50 CIA referrals a year seeking a preliminary investigation into leaks of classified information.

So what happened to the other 49 in 2003? or the 50 in 2004 or the, oh, about 25 so far this year?

Isn't anyone outrage about those other instances?

Silly question, I know.

Fresh Air

Gee whiz, Rider, I remember the days when people used to actually wait for grand juries to do their work before selectively leaking testimony and seizing the microphones to declare grave crimes have been committed.

I remember when our intelligence services were something other than a vehicle for political bickering. I remember when former national security advisers didn't sneak off with classified documents in their underwear and "accidentally" cut them up scissors.

I remember when Democrats were fair-minded enough to let investigations reach their completion before jumping up and making asses of themselves.

No side has a monopoly on virtue. But the Democrats certainly are running a deficit of it right now. If it keeps up, they will join the Whigs in the ash heap of history.

jukeboxgrad

NIKITA

"wouldn't he have signed a document saying he would not disclose or discuss the matter publicly"

I guess not. In his famous NYT article Wilson said "the mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret."

"why isn't Valerie Plame and her supervisory chain at Langley in trouble for sending her house-husband"

Because the idea that she did the "sending" is apparently a figment of Rove's imagination (link).

"why isn't the mainstream press asking the above simple questions"

Because unlike you, they actually do some research before opening their mouth.

FRESH

"The judge did not affirm that 'a crime was committed.'"

Nice job trying to put words in my mouth. That's not what I said.

What I did say is that "one or more judges have taken this matter very seriously." The behavior of the judges tends to create the impression that they are seriously considering the possibility that a crime was committed.

This is in stark contrast to our various legal "experts" here who are confidently yelling about 5-year time limits etc.

"In the meantime, the judge has ordered Ms. Miller to comply with the subpeona or face the pokey."

Exactly. Fitzgerald, and the judges involved, would not have forced Miller into jail if they were not convinced that the underlying issues are very, very serious.

On the other hand, they should just all just read this blog, and then they would know that your pals are quite confident that no crime was committed. Think of all the effort they could have saved!

"why did Joe Wilson out his own wife?"

As far as I know Wilson has not been interviewed by the FBI, or called to testify before the grand jury. If only Fitzgerald and the FBI were as smart as you, they would have cracked this thing ages ago!

"seizing the microphones to declare grave crimes have been committed."

Weren't you the guy who just accused Wilson of outing his own wife?

SYL

"The Justice Department receives about 50 CIA referrals a year"

Let us know how many of those lead to a two-year criminal investigation, with a reporter ending up in jail, and the FBI and a grand jury talking to witnesses such as the president, the vice president, Secy. Powell, "Bush White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, political adviser Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis I. Libby, Republican National Committee consultant Mary Matalin, former Cheney press aide Catherine Martin, White House press secretary Scott McClellan, communications director Dan Bartlett, deputy press secretary Claire Buchan, and former assistant press secretary Adam Levine." (link)

Happens all the time, right?

Rider

If you were the CEO of a company and evidence had come to your attention that an employee had sold proprietary information - say a piece of software that you had developed - to a competitor, would you wait until he was tried and found guilty before at least sending him to work in the mail room? That would be nuts.

The words "Democrat" or "Republican" have no business in a discussion of a breach of classified information. Does anybody really believe that the other party is the pro-treason party? Again, it is not smart - not in anyone's best interest - to politicize American security. Any decent person who really cares about this country should be able to see that. Admittedly, it does fly in the face of your belief Democrats Equal Traitors. But I would advise you not to trust everything that Republicans say about security and not to dismiss everything that Democrats say. Protecting classified information should not be about politics. Protecting classified information should be about protecting America.

An interesting story is developing at ABC News and reported on Americablog:

http://www.americablog.org/

All the sources cited, I believe, are right-leaning newspapers / news-services.

peapies

Juke is being a snark again...but Kausfiles fleshes out the noble diplomat question Fresh is getting to

"...Isn't this an obvious point that hasn't been made about Joseph Wilson and the Rove/Plame controversy: If you accept an assignment to investigate possible WMD-related activity in Niger on behalf of the CIA, and your wife works at the CIA, shouldn't you think before you make your CIA mission the subject of a high-profile New York Times op-ed piece that there might be the eensiest weensiest chance that in the course of the ensuing controversy your wife's CIA connection might come out in public? How could Wilson not have expected his wife's job to become the buzz of Washington in fairly short order? ... However serious her outing was--and there are those eight redacted pages to worry about--doesn't Wilson bear some substantial responsibility for it as well as whoever in the administration eventually "outed" her to reporters? ... You can't have it all, we are often told. When you marry a covert CIA agent, maybe there are some things you have to give up. Like going on Meet the Press to talk about the CIA! ...3:40 P.M

http://slate.msn.com/id/2122431/

Rider

Americablog story. Juan Cole is obviously not a right-leaning source, but NY Daily News and Washington Times are.

Anyway, I think what that story is all about really is the danger of politicizing American security. It appears that's what happened, again through an American leak to the news media who took it from there. But the whole chain was started by the announcement of a heightened alert during the Democratic Convention, which just about everybody disregarded at the time because they figured it was politics. If someone shouts, "Wolf!" we should not have to ask, "Now is he a Republican or a Democrat?" Very dangerous thing.

jukeboxgrad

Hey Fresh, at 1:15 I pointed out that your terrific RNC talking-points smear-list starts out with a big fat lie ("Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger"). I'll be waiting patiently for your response.

jukeboxgrad

PEAPLES

"Juke is being a snark again"

Nice job being specific.

"How could Wilson not have expected his wife's job to become the buzz of Washington in fairly short order?"

Let me know where in Wilson's article he said "my wife works for the CIA."

Anyway, you should tell Fitzgerald to read Kaus, because the FBI is obviously missing the boat chasing after all those White House folks and letting Wilson off the hook.

By the way, even if Wilson had done something to compromise Plame's identity, that doesn't give Rove a free pass to do the same thing. If Wilson and Rove had both done wrong, they should both be accountable. For some strange reason, however, Fitzgerald is very interested in the latter and not interested in the former. Too bad he's not as smart as you and Kaus.

peapies

Juke-
-Nice job being specific-

-no need to. it's pretty general, like the waiver I suppose.

anyhow...juke...you should be ready or willing to consider other outcomes

TM

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes."

Bush's "yes" is plainly referring to "fire anyone found to have done so." And "done so" is plainly referring to "leaked the agent's name."

Sure. Unless Bush's "yes" is plainly referring to "do you stand by your pledge".

Seeing as how Bush had never made the pledge cited by the reporter, a strict reading of the question reduces it to nonsense - "Do you stand by a pledge you never made?"

Folks who think Bush needs to be bound by the reporter's re-phrasing are playing gotcha games. I am not.

Do you stand by your pledge - yes. Easy to follow.

Aaron

Anyone who thinks a trip to Niger is some kind of hellish journey that is not a "perk" has not been to a third world country lately.

Sheratons exist everywhere, and the 5 star service is even better in 3rd world countries.

The best hotel I ever stayed at was in Ho Chi Minh City.

I'd imagine the Niger government also picks you up in a Mercedes Benz limo and then drinks mint tea with you while you ask them questions.

Sure, it's still a "job" but it's not hardship at that level.

Boronx

Wilson doesn't say or imply anywhere in your quotes that Cheney had received his report, and we know for a fact that the CIA had warned the administration about this information months previous to the SOTU, so what's the point of this post again?

Bruce Hayden

Please, quit pushing that Plame didn't send her husband to Niger. Yes, this is semantic. Entirely.

Sure, she did not get the tickets for him, or, indeed, actually authorize it. So, at that level you are correct - she did not "send" him to Niger.

But the Senate report showed that she both suggested that he be sent and then later followed that up with a memo. And from that, he was sent.

So, you are essentially building your case that the administration, etc., lied because they used a different definition of "sent" than you do.

Bruce Hayden

I doubt if we will really ever know why Plame pushed for her husband to be sent to Niger. Was it because she truly thought that he was the best one for the job? Was it to get him out of the house? Was it to further his (and thus their joint) career?

Anything she says now will probably be self serving, and torn apart by all concerned anyway.

vnjagvet

The Drudge light is on with tomorrow's NYT expose' from an anonymous source who allegedly has the skinny on Novak's July 8 conversation with Rove (initiated by Novak) in which Novak tried to get verification from Rove of a report he had heard that Wilson's wife was with the CIA and had something to do with Wilson's trip. Rove either said "I heard that too" (the anonymous source says that is what Rove told investigators) or "Oh, you know about it" as reported by Novak in an October 1, 2003 column.

My quick perusal detected nothing earth shattering here, but it is really pumped up as a new revelation.

peapies

Plame came home and said "there are these crazy reports"...now go boy, discredit them!

Bruce Hayden

I do agree with the posters who posit that Rove told Bush everything about his involvement before Fitzgerald was appointed. That is just the way that Bush works. Rove not telling him in advance, but surprising him later would get Rove fired on the spot.

What is most often forgotten is that President Bush runs this country like a corporation - like he was taught at Harvard. Good CEOs don't like surprises, esp. ones that their subordinates are hiding from them. Enough happens outside their control without that.

And this is part of the loyalty that he is so famous for. He expects it and he gives it. But part of the loyalty is not being sandbagged. On the other hand, this also means that he is somewhat forgiving of slight screwups - if confessed to on a timely basis.

The problem is that the MSM, et al., don't understand this mindset because they are not used to dealing with people with this type of training. This is far, far, different from the actions of an attorney faced with a similar situation.

As a note, I have both types of training, B school and law school, and while the former spends a lot of time teaching this sort of thing, there is absolutely none of it in law school.

peapies

vnjagvet--
the NYT scream, didn't seem sorely dated?

peapies

Bruce

The problem is that the MSM, et al., don't understand this mindset because they are not used to dealing with people with this type of training.

sounds about right...which is odd since they (jourlists) tolerate so many lapses within their own profession.

ArminTamzarian

As someone mentioned earlier, what the hell's up with what Wilson says in his book?

Supposedly, on July 8, 2003, the same date Rove allegedly spoke to Novak, a friend of Wilson encounterd Novak on a street corner and, just for kicks, asked him about Wilson. (Yeah, I know, but just assume.) Novak said,

"Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him."

This friend then told Wilson what happened, and Wilson's first reaction was to call Eason Jordan and ask him to intervene. Wilson says he did not speak to Novak until July 10.

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2005/07/disclosure-for-me-but-not-for-thee.html

I'm just not smart enough to figure out what the frak is going on here.

vnjagvet

P:

Sorely. But it's definitely breathless. I wonder if Miller reads this stuff and asks herself why she's wearing a jumpsuit. There are going to be some very disappointed true believing left of center bloggers.

Kinda like a certain November evening last year, when they thought they had it in the bag.

peapies

vijagvet-
oh yes it is.

some very disappointed true believing left of center bloggers.

there is no capacity to believe otherwise...

I'm still wading through Wilsons interview with Blitzer today..

ArminTamzarian

Does anyone else have a hunch that Wilson talked to Novak on the 8th, spilled more than he realized, and has been covering his ass ever since?

Martin

"I'm just not smart enough to figure out what the frak is going on here."

Finally something we can both agree on.

peapies

Armin-

YES,...but I think that "someone" gave Judith Miller classified info too and she spilled a little too much of that to Libby

I can't comment on your blog! only team members. what up!

peapies

hey Martin...I am awaiting your apology that I am delusional

Martin

Im sorry that you're delusional.

peapies

So who was you $20 bet with? This will encourage him!

ME--
ust heard Hugh Hewitt say Wilson was on CNN and said his wife was NOT undercover.

no transcript yet...could someone smell the "target" coming their way? Was todays news conference a chance to "Ken Starr" Fitzgerald!

no transcript as of yet

July 14, 2005 03:39 PM

YOU--
onh come on peapies...you're delusional.
if Hugh Hewitt said that he has finally snapped.
July 14, 2005 03:46 PM


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.>/b>

ArminTamzarian

Ah, Martin, you are as brilliant and insightful as ever. Care to put that tungsten intellect of yours to work and explain to the hoi polloi down here what's really going on?

A Rovian Web of Evil® diagram would be helpful.

Barring that, polymath that you are, perhaps you can help me with something else I have been puzzling over: why would a senior Chinese military officer suggest that China, which does not have second strike capability, will adopt a first strike posture against the United States, which does have second strike capability and could probably even make a successful first strike against China?

Your inspiring wisdom and temperance will, as always, be humbly appreciated.

peapies

i left a broken tag...thats what I get for being a smart ass

ArminTamzarian

bold

bold

not bold

jukeboxgrad

AARON

"Anyone who thinks a trip to Niger is some kind of hellish journey that is not a 'perk'"

Wilson had already served in Africa for many years. He had lived in Iraq for 2 or 3 years. He had young twins at home. It's hard to imagine he needed more time in Niger as a "perk."

"Sheratons exist everywhere"

I'm pretty sure there are no Sheratons in Niger. I'm also pretty sure the best hotel in Niger is here. It looks far from "hellish," but it also doesn't look like anything a career diplomat like Wilson hadn't already seen 1000 times before.

"it's still a 'job'"

Except for the fact that he did it pro bono. Only expenses were covered.

BRUCE

"quit pushing that Plame didn't send her husband to Niger ... Sure, she did not ... actually authorize it"

Exactly. She did not "authorize" it. Trouble is, that's exactly what Rove said: "authorize" (if Cooper's email is to be believed). Another version of this lie is that she "set up" the trip (link).

"she both suggested that he be sent and then later followed that up with a memo"

This statement could be read to imply that the trip itself was her idea. That's appears not to be the case. It appears that others had the idea that someone should be sent, and then there's some indication she mentioned his name.

By the way, please explain why the people used as sources for the SSCI report are more credible than this source: "A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.'"

"building your case that the administration, etc., lied because they used a different definition of "sent" than you do."

Even if you completely accept the SSCI report, this gets you as far as believing she "suggested" or "recommended" him. Trouble is, Rove said she "authorized" the trip. Let me know when "recommended" and "authorized" became synonyms.

Anyway, let's say she mentioned his name. So what? As I said earlier, it was a WSJ reporter, oddly enough, who said: "That Ms. Plame recommended her husband doesn't undercut Mr. Wilson's credentials for the job of trying to figure out whether Saddam Hussein was seeking the raw material for a nuclear weapon in Africa."

The fact that Rove made such a big deal about this aspect just indicates how little he had to work with, factually, in his quest to discredit Wilson.

"I doubt if we will really ever know why Plame pushed for her husband to be sent to Niger"

What I doubt even more is that you'll ever show proof for your dubious assertion that she "pushed."

"Was it because she truly thought that he was the best one for the job?"

Hmm, let's see. He had served in Africa for many years. He had previously visited Niger on behalf of the CIA. He had served as ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing country near Niger. He was a respected diplomat who had been complimented by GHWB for his "courageous leadership." Nah, none of that had anything to do with it.

"I do agree with the posters who posit that Rove told Bush everything about his involvement before Fitzgerald was appointed"

Then why did Bush and Rove make it so hard for Fitzgerald (and the rest of us) to find out what went on between Cooper and Rove? How does this square with Bush claiming he was aggressively supporting the investigation?

VN

"My quick perusal detected nothing earth shattering here"

The report says: "When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that."

I think the key word in that passage is "inquired." This seems to indicate that Novak was asking Rove for verification, and Rove obliged. This means that Rove not only leaked to Cooper, but also leaked to Novak.

It looks more and more like Rove was playing a central role in a little gossip network. Of course this is highly contrary to all the vehement denials coming out of the White House for the last couple of years.

ARMIN

"a hunch that Wilson talked to Novak on the 8th, spilled more than he realized, and has been covering his ass ever since?"

Why don't you guys just go straight to Fitzgerald and let him know he's been barking up the wrong tree all this time? Think of the taxpayer money that could be saved, since you're so far ahead of where he is.

ArminTamzarian

peapies:

That's not my blog. Oh, but someday, I will have a blog of my own, and it will be more powerful than Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the Incredible Hulk combined.

Martin

Ok-once more from the top.

Novak, before the investigation:

"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

So who is "they"?

And Ok peapies, I apologize without qualification-unless you think the "they" is Wilson, Plame, or Miller. Then it's apology retracted.

ArminTamzarian

jukeboxgrad:

Cute, but you presume you have any idea what Fitzgerald is investigating. Everyone now agrees it's not the IIPA, and obviously it can't be the Espionage Act, so what's left? Perjury? That could be anyone.

Ta ta.

Martin

Armin-re: China. They know we are bluffing about defending Taiwan. Ain't gonna happen.

Not only is starting a nuclear war over Taiwan, insane in any event, but
Chinese labor is propping up our economy.

They know it. We know it. And they know we know it. Nobody in America wants to go back to factory work.

peapies

Armin-

i have no doubt.

who was Martins bet with?

does anyone know this

it is my understanding the "target" of a grand jury is really not that used in testimony, but I don't know that for sure.

peapies

Martin--apology unaccepted

ArminTamzarian

But Martin, declaring a first strike policy is fundamentally an admission of weakness.

Martin

The bet's with Armin.

And don't ship me 2000 pennies.

ArminTamzarian

Peapies:

Me, though he couldn't keep it straight. To be fair, at least one other person couldn't, either.

peapies

Armin- the title of the blog you mentioned is actually ahead of the curve given Wilsons denial that Val was covert at the time. Seems to be his attempt to weasel.."I" knew she wasn't covert at the time..BUT???

Martin

Ok-China's weak. Great. Weak. Strong. Streak. Wong. Whatever.

Who's going to invade China?

They got this big wall for one thing.

peapies

Martin-

--And don't ship me 2000 pennies.

I think that's a fair request no matter who wins---

ArminTamzarian

But, as far as I can tell, a country without second strike capability should never adopt a first strike posture against a country with a second strike capability and a high chance of success in a preemptive strike. It's just not logical.

Now, if you were smarter, you'd know that their wall never really kept anyone out.

jukeboxgrad

ARMIN

"explain to the hoi polloi down here what's really going on?"

It's not that complicated. Rove is in the process of getting caught outing a covert agent, during wartime, for relatively trivial political purposes, and then trying to cover it up.

"China"

When all else fails, change the subject.

"you presume you have any idea what Fitzgerald is investigating"

There are a lot of things we don't know about what Fitz is doing. However (as I mentioned earlier), many, many people in and around the White House (including Bush and Cheney) have been interviewed by the FBI and/or called by the grand jury. Wilson, as far as I know, has not. These facts seem incongruent with your suggestion that this is all about Wilson "covering his ass."

By the way, I think Rove has appeared before the grand jury three times. My understanding is that this is highly unusual, and it tends to create the impression that new facts have been emerging which cast doubt on his earlier testimony.

PEAPLES

"i left a broken tag"

What I've noticed around here is that sometimes it's possible to close them in a subsequent message, and sometimes not. Hopefully some smart person will figure out why.

You had said "Wilson was on CNN and said his wife was NOT undercover."

Here's my interpretation of that remark: "Plame was never a covert operative, and it's all much ado about nothing."

The transcript says "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity"

Here's my interpretation of that remark: "My wife did indeed have a history and identity as a covert operative, and her cover was indeed blown; however, at the time of the Novak article, she was not currently working as a clandestine officer."

peapies

Wait a second...Novak doesn't have to testify if he tells Fitz. all he knows does he?

ArminTamzarian

Peapies:

Someone linked to that blog earlier in here, but nobody paid attention.

Yes, it's interesting that all that was in a book dashed off last year, isn't it?

I e-mailed the blogger for a clarification of whether Wilson ever gave a name for this "friend."

I'm not surprised nobody noticed this before. Who would actually buy the book? Not even our Kerry-loving friends in here are that crazy.

peapies

hey juke thanks about the tag!

Martin

Juke's right.

I just came back from the Corner where I see Podhorretch is making a total idiot out of himself again over this statement by Wilson.

Lokk Plame was a NOC at one point. When Rovak outed her she was still covert.

This primer for Slate handily explains: "Hard target" countries like China and North Korea often keep records of every known meeting between Americans and their scientists and officials. Almost certainly, those lists would have been frantically reviewed when Plame's identity was revealed, and any sources she recruited could have been exposed.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089062/

peapies

peapies

The transcript says "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity"

Here's my interpretation of that remark: "My wife did indeed have a history and identity as a covert operative, and her cover was indeed blown; however, at the time of the Novak article, she was not currently working as a clandestine officer."

---so you just admitted no crime was committed?

peapies

I think typos a perfectly acceptable

Lokk Plame was a NOC at one point. When Rovak outed her she was still covert.

SO NO SNARK about them when you don't like someones argument!

ArminTamzarian

Again, the problem I have with pointing fingers at Rove is that it doesn't explain Miller's role. Of all people, why would she protect Rove, even though he waived confidentiality? That makes no sense.

Someone also needs to explain the account in Wilson's book, which, if accurately presented, is totally incredible. A "friend" just happened to run into Novak on a "street corner," the day he made calls on this story, and Novak just freely blurted out sensitive information. That wouldn't pass the smell test coming from George Washington.

Martin

Peapies let's say I robbed a bank in 2000 and am a fugitive.

The bank shuts down in 2002.

Can I still be arrested?

peapies

Martin--IF IT IS PROVEN IN COURT YES

ArminTamzarian

" . . . the United States is taking [present progressive tense] affirmative measures [note the affirmative] to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States . . ."


"The term "covert agent" means a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency . . . whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States . . . "

The More You Know®.

Martin

Yes-so even if Valerie was shut down when Rovak outed her, she still had valuable assets out there, which were compromised.

So again-Wilson told the truth today.

peapies

you could be "covert" and tell people you work at the CIA, only not that you were covert or in what capaicty--in othe words lie to people about you specific job?

peapies

strike were, add weren't and no question mark...having todies for my body now.

peapies

Martin--maybe he did, thereby exonerating any crime!

peapies

by any one

jukeboxgrad

PEAPLES

"thanks about the tag"

Anytime. I just wish I knew how to fix it. Believe me, I've tried.

"so you just admitted no crime was committed?"

Of course not. The fact that she was not currently engaged in a clandestine assignment (and this is my interpretation of Wilson's recent remark) doesn't mean her cover wasn't blown.

"IF IT IS PROVEN IN COURT YES"

Small detail: the "arrest" part usually happens before the "proven in court" (sometimes referred to as a 'trial') part.

"you could be 'covert' and tell people you work at the CIA"

No. Plame was probably not typically telling people she worked for CIA. That's why the nature of the statement Rove apparently made is material.

ARMIN

"it doesn't explain Miller's role. Of all people, why would she protect Rove, even though he waived confidentiality?"

Those are good questions. There's a ton of speculation about Miller, and I think a lot of it is based on unwarranted assumptions. Here is an unwarranted assumption I think you're making: Rove is the only perp. On the contrary. There are various indications he had help.

Anyway, I think some of the most interesting comments about Miller can be found here (scroll to the section "Freeing Judith Miller").

"just happened to run into Novak"

Washington is a smaller town than you think. And certain kinds of people tend to hang out in certain kinds of places. It sounds completely plausible to me.

peapies

okay this way...my father was super deep, covert, clandestine spook for NSA (85 stoke victim now) he spent years at a time away from us in Cuba, Middle East and Asia (mexican decent, blended well everywhere) a various times. All neighbors, friends, family KNEW he worked at NSA, knew he was gone for long periods of time...yet they did not KNOW his was "Covert"

peapies

tag--ME TOO, I tried!

Small detail: the "arrest" part usually happens before the "proven in court" (sometimes referred to as a 'trial') part.

---so perjury would be covered under this then too?

ArminTamzarian

JBG:

Of course not. The fact that she was not currently engaged in a clandestine assignment (and this is my interpretation of Wilson's recent remark) doesn't mean her cover wasn't blown.

Actually, if you read the statute, it does.

Washington is a smaller town than you think. And certain kinds of people tend to hang out in certain kinds of places. It sounds completely plausible to me.

Running into someone, I can understand. That this particular "friend" would run into that particular person on that particular day and time, that he would say that particular thing, I can't understand. There's small, and there's Rube Goldberg. However, I really need the complete passage from the book to make a definitive hasty judgment. Guess I'll have to go to a bargain bin somewhere.

peapies

oh for goodness sakes...wilson confirmed to novak and thats why his "not covert on the day" hes parsing to CA ...its a pickle for Wilson...a lot of things are a pickle for plame and wilson...he thought the wrath would force Rove out a long time ago regardless and he could continue doing photo spreads,... only it didn't ...be careful what you ask for is the moral to the story...he is just praying judy keeps tight

jukeboxgrad

ARMIN

"Actually, if you read the statute, it does [matter whether or not she is currently engaged in a clandestine assignment]."

I've tried to make clear in a variety of posts that I'm not particularly interested in splitting legal hairs about the IIPA and the Espionage Act. What interests me, because it's what I think matters morally and politically, is the common-sense understanding of outing a covert agent.

"Running into someone, I can understand"

This is the kind of situation that happens all the time where we say "what a small world." (The rest of the Steven Wright joke is "but I wouldn't want to paint it.")

PEAPLES

"wilson confirmed to novak"

Really? And you're getting that where? The passage from Wilson's book says "I told him that I didn’t answer questions about my wife."

"a lot of things are a pickle for plame and wilson"

I guess that explains why Fitz and the FBI are showing a great deal of interest in a long list of VIPs at the White House, and little or no interest in Plame and Wilson.

Fresh Air

Martin--

Based upon the pictures I've seen, Valerie definitely has valuable assets--just not the kind you mean.

Juke--

I'm retiring. You get to pick all the records for the rest of the night. By the way, check your NYT tomorrow for some interesting news about Darth Rove.

Other Generic Trolls and various liberals populating this site--

If Rove really did commit a crime, I would say unhesitatingly he has to go. The trouble here is, he didn't. Parse all you want, but the facts and the statute don't support that interpretation.

The statute was designed to protect against moles within the intelligence community, not politicians and journalists. Still, some of you cling to this notion and continue to argue Rove committed a serious crime.

So here is the deal: On the day Karl Rove is indicted for any crime, I will come back to this site the same day at 5 p.m. Central time and post in capital letters: I WAS WRONG. YOU WERE RIGHT. I MADE A MISTAKE.

On the other hand, if Mr. Fitzgerald concludes his investigation without indicting Rove, you will do the same.

Deal? Who's honest enough to sign up?

peapies

http://www.thelenreid.com/articles/article/art_202_idx.htm

What to do when the grand jury material hits the fan. Grand jury subpoenas issue at beginning, middle or end of investigation. Usually get documents first, then proceed to "active grand jury phase" involving witnesses.

1.  Key is determining your client's "status". Subpoenaed party may be a "witness" (expected to provide needed testimony and/or documents, etc.), a "subject" (activities within scope of grand jury investigation, could face charges) or a "target" (putative defendant, indictment likely).

2.  Early contact with AUSA may determine client's status.

a.  DOJ policy discourages subpoenas to targets for testimony, but not uncommon for target company to receive subpoena for documents, even after a search warrant has been executed.

b.  Deputy District Attorneys and locals have few effective checks and abuses do occur. Not reigned in by local judiciary.

3.  Reading the Tea Leaves: scope of subpoena, time frame and nature of documents sought often provide important clues about nature of government investigation and confirmation of status.

4.  Generally, some factual investigation by counsel is needed to determine client's exposure and appropriate responses. Today's "witness" can be tomorrow's target. Important to assess risk as early as possible.

peapies

I guess that explains why Fitz and the FBI are showing a great deal of interest in a long list of VIPs at the White House, and little or no interest in Plame and Wilson....
----------DOJ policy discourages subpoenas to targets for testimony, ...

jukeboxgrad

TM

In your update, you tout "Jim Lindgren (via Glenn)," who you claim "has a well done summary." Trouble is, this "well done summary" features a prominent falsehood, that apparently folks like you, Reynolds and Lindgren can't be bothered to notice (either that, or the lot of you are intentional liars). I detail this here.

FRESH

"check your NYT tomorrow for some interesting news about Darth Rove"

I already commented about that somewhere around these parts.

"If Rove really did commit a crime, I would say unhesitatingly he has to go."

Your standards are too low. What a striking claim for the Bush White House: Not Convicted Yet!

"some of you ... continue to argue Rove committed a serious crime"

Most people understand that many things that are immoral are not illegal.

jukeboxgrad

"DOJ policy discourages subpoenas to targets for testimony"

I don't think Fitz has spent two years grilling every VIP in the White House, and throwing Miller in jail, so he can tell us in the end that Plame was outed by her own husband, especially given that as far as I can tell, Wilson hasn't even been questioned.

You're obviously entitled to your own speculation, though.

I don't know how to interpret the opinion you cited. It makes no sense to me that a "target" would never be expected to testify.

peapies

jukeboxgrad-

I am loving the lefts new motto...guilty before INDICTED, screw proven...where were you when perjury was happening? Oh and leaking good when Sid B. doing it! or Bacon...the party of sliming women happens to be yours.

consistency I can see is your strong suit

Fresh Air

Jukebox--

This really is my last post for the night. Stop moving the goalposts. If you want to talk about immorality, we can have a very long talk about the past administration, as recently represented by its former National Security Adviser Sandy "Socks" Berger.

I offered you all a challenge. I see you won't take me up on it. Figures.

P.S. TM--Typepad really blows.

peapies

Juke---TWO years???? Have you ever participated in anything legal--other than DIP?????? Thats fucking streming! Which is so screwed about lawyers in general...no offense lawyers...I know they love blogs but my experience is the profession SSS UUU CCC KKK SSS.

However Juke you SIDE STEP "DOJ policy discourages subpoenas to """targets""" for""" testimony"""" I believe you said Rove had testified 3 times! no?

jukeboxgrad

"If you want to talk about immorality, we can have a very long talk about the past administration"

I realized that lying about a blowjob is more harmful to national security than outing a covert agent (working on WMD issues, no less) during wartime, and then telling lies to cover it up.

By they way, it's not a good sign for your argument that you have to resort to "not any worse than Clinton" (even if that were true). I seem to remember some kind of campaign promise about restoring honor and dignity to the White House.

Fresh Air

Damnit Juke! I'm trying to get to bed.

Who said anything about blowjobs? Awfully touchy about that subject, aren't we? Though perjury is a crime, not just "immoral," like say, a married man lying about shagging interns in the Oval Office.

Anyway, Plame wasn't covert, either at the time of the alleged "outing." (See that lovely transcript from Wolf Blitzer today), or under the statute 50 USC 416, which defines "covert" as having been a foreign clandestine agent within the past five years. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Plame was recalled in 1997. You do the math.

I don't expect any of these facts to matter to you, because you have obviously made up your mind that's this "outing business" is exactly what Karl Rove would do, therefore he must have done it. I will leave you to the tangled web of your own synapses to sort the logic of that one out.

If you can answer these questions, you will understand why my concern for the moral tenor of the current occupants of the White House is rather muted.

How many members of the Clinton White House were convicted of felonies?

How many pieces of White House silverware did the Clintons take with them to Chappaqua?

Why was Marc Rich pardoned on Clinton's last day in office?

Good night.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame