Powered by TypePad

« Baby Steps Towards The Truth | Main | The Times Joins The Russert Cover-up »

October 26, 2005

Comments

Geek, Esq.

"Three days before expiry of their term? When does a prosecutor normally tell a grand jury what crime(s) they are supposed to be investigating?"

That I don't know.

clarice

Really? And how definite was that--we don't know what Novak told the sp--I do know that Harlow is the only named source.

Sue

Geek,

Surely not. Your civil rights do not extend to lying.

clarice

Isn't there also a law which is supposed to preclude CIA officials and employees from engaging in domestic political activities? As long as we're playing fantasyland criminal law?

cathyf

Actually, Sue, your civil rights do extend to lying (except for narrow limitations like being under oath, obstructing justice, attempting criminal fraud, etc.) Of course a person's right to free speech also includes the right to assert that someone is a liar.

cathy :-)

Geek, Esq.

"Surely not. Your civil rights do not extend to lying."

Patrick Fitzgerald would beg to disagree.

"This case is not about a whistle-blower. Its about a potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

Anyone who thinks that Joe Wilson is facing the possibility of indictment should be sterilized

topsecretk9

One thing we know, ABC was right, there was nothing true about having anything double sourced...

Is this a double observation?

j.west

Ouch!

Jim O'Sullivan

I haven't had time to read all of the comments, so I'm sorry if someone else said this already: Doesn't the fact that Fitzgerald is canvassing the Wilson's neighborhood mean that he has not yet decided whether to bring charges under the anti-outing statutes? I know, I know, that tells us little about his plans re: perjury. Unless he knows he has no perjury cases, and is giving one last shot to the outing charges. Isn't it fun to speculate?

Geek, Esq.

"Of course a person's right to free speech also includes the right to assert that someone is a liar."

True.

But no one in the WH is being prosecuted for calling Joe Wilson a liar.

jukeboxgrad

"charges for violating Joe Wilson's civil rights"

I haven't bothered to look at the UPI story, but I saw another report indicating that Wilson is considering a civil suit. Civil suit, civil rights, maybe this is a source of some confusion.

Clarice: "you can go to The Daily Howler (Aesop's Fable post) for more--but from the SSCI report we have ... "

I'm pretty familiar with both those sources. Please indicate where those sources show that Wilson said he saw the documents. They don't show that. They only show he made statements about the documents. That is not the same as claiming he saw them.

Keep trying.

"Isn't there also a law which is supposed to preclude CIA officials and employees ... "

I don't know. But Wilson was not in those categories.

Herman

Anyone who thinks that Joe Wilson is facing the possibility of indictment should be sterilized

sig heil!

Tollhouse

It may be simply that the grand jury itself requested the new(er) canvassing of the neighbors.

Of course, you could make the assumption that a grand jury, that after 22 months, still doesn't have enough info to pass the low bar of probable cause that a crime has committed, doesn't bode well for any real court case.

Geek, Esq.

Godwin's law.

BurbankErnie

Geek,
Do you think it is out of the question that Joe Wilson can be brought up on a Conspiracy charge?
I do not see why you are defending Wilson. He is definitely not a whistleblower by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like to know why, knowing all we know, Wilson is not guilty of anything.

Appalled Moderate

What do you mean by that, Geek. Bad commenters will always drive out the good?

Mac

Walk, Quack, Duck.

ed

chances he's just waiting for the white sox to finish up before he does? How could a Chicago prosecutor get any work done last night/this morning?

ordi

Geek Wrote: Anyone who thinks that Joe Wilson is facing the possibility of indictment should be sterilized.

Geek, won't that violate someones "Reproductive Rights"?

ordi

Geek also Wrote: The theory here would be that the Bush administration sought to intimidate and punish Joe Wilson for the exercise of his free speech rights.

You joking Right? No I suppose your not.

It would not sell! A spread in Vanity Fair, hours of TV Time! He exercised his FREEDOM OF SPEAK ALL OVER THE PLACE!

clarice

The NY Sun reports that Fitz spent an hour with J Hogan and surmises he's asking for an extension.

Maybe.

Maybe he's reporting that there are no indictments and he's released the gj.

Or--let me go out on a limb here--maybe he's asking to extend his inquiry to cover the disappearance of Natalia Hollaway.;)

topsecretk9

Ordi

and called the Admin "Lying asshole bastards", too! How successful does Joe think a defamation suit would be? Or is that why he is on civil rights?

ed

a rumor update:

Update/Leak indictments

by Patrick Lang
Wed Oct 26th, 2005 at 02:57:14 PM EDT
From Richard Sale, longtime UPI intelligence correspondent:

An hour ago I was contacted by a U.S. government official close to the Fitzgerald case. This person told me that there WILL be indictments announced later this afternoon, and the Special Prosecutor will hold a press conference tomorrow.

Richard Sale


http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/26/145714/44

Creepy Dude

You'll have to forgive Fitz for moving a little slow. He is, after all, doing the work of 535 people.

Bruce Cleaver

Appalled Moderate:

That's Gresham's Law. Godwin's Law is the tendency to compare someone to Hitler/Nazis.

Geek, Esq.

"Geek,
Do you think it is out of the question that Joe Wilson can be brought up on a Conspiracy charge?
I do not see why you are defending Wilson. He is definitely not a whistleblower by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like to know why, knowing all we know, Wilson is not guilty of anything."

Guess who uttered the following quote:

"This case is not about a whistle-blower. Its about a potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

A) Joe Wilson;
B) TM
C) Don Luskin;
D) Patrick Fitzgerald

clarice

As to Richard Sale--HEH Tuck him in the same fruitcake basket with Johnson and Karen Kwiatkowski

BurbankErnie

Geek,
When did Fitz make his Whistleblower statement?

Maybe the GJ, who issues the Indictments, sees it differently as the facts come out in a case, and maybe Fitz did too. Since Fitz does not leak, it is possible.

So, Link please Geek.

cathyf
But no one in the WH is being prosecuted for calling Joe Wilson a liar.
Trivially true, since so far no one in the WH is being prosecuted.

cathy :-)

Geek, Esq.

"Tuck him in the same fruitcake basket with Johnson and Karen Kwiatkowski"

Those who think Joe Wilson is facing indictment should throw no stones (or fruit).

Sue

I don't think the right to lie is covered under the civil rights act.

Geek, Esq.

"Geek,
When did Fitz make his Whistleblower statement?"

"We shouldn't enable people to think court orders are optional," Fitzgerald said. "When President Nixon got the order to turn over the [White House] tapes, he didn't say, 'Let me think about my alternatives.' " "This case is not about a whistle-blower," Fitzgerald added. "It's about potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

"Maybe the GJ, who issues the Indictments, sees it differently as the facts come out in a case, and maybe Fitz did too. Since Fitz does not leak, it is possible."

So is the fact that Hillary was the leaker, and that Fitzgerald is really investigating Vince Foster's death.

reliapundit - the astute blogger

MY PREDICTION:

wilson, libby and rove get charged with crimes under the espionage act because they confirmed classified data.

rove and libby also get charged with obstruction and perjury.

wilson pleads guilty, and gets a suspended sentence.

rove and libby resign, get treid and exonerated.

HERE'S THE UTTER SHAME OF IT ALL:

saddam was i violation of nearly all the unscrs which comprised the armistice for the 1991 guylkf war; therefore, even if the nuke charge was false/twisted/hyped, the war was justified. IN ADDITION, the results have been very VERY good: saddam on trial, a constitution, and more and MORE sunni participation every week. and lebanon freed, and kadafy tamed, and syria on the run, AND iran surrounded.

SO: for the left/dems/doves to be pushing this angle is sickeningly bad, and wrong.

the BEST they can hope for is to HURT BUSH and the GOP enough to gain the one or both hgouses of Congress --- SO THEY COULD DO WHAT?!? I tell you what: abandon the iraqis and the afghnis and the lebanese and the syrians the way they adandoned the South Vietnamese and the Contras.

that what makes their effort so terrible.

frankly, i don't give a ratz-ass about libby or rove. they are just employees. ken mehlman is better than rove, and could step in and improve things.

what upsets me is that those behind this POLITICAL effort - wilson, dean, pelosi, rangel, kerry, kennedy, durbin & reid - they are all doves and appeasers and multi-lateralist internationalists who would jeopardize our gains in WW4 (and our new-found democratic allies) in order to curry favor with euro-leftie elites and to nationalize the medical industry, and maybe even the energy industry.

that's why i am fighting them so hard; i fear that if they get in pwer we're in for JIMMY CARTER REDUX.

and that would be a BIGGER disaster now than it was then.

thank god bush has real resolve. as long as he is president we will; keep fighting the enemy.

but the fight is best fought with a GOP senate and a GOP house.

so between any indictments and the next election we must all fight the doves of the dem-left HARD.

and i am a 21 year registered dem - who was anti-vietnam and anti-0contra - BUT WHO NOW SEES THAT REAGAN AND THATCHER WERE ROGHT.

which makews me more like Tony Blair than Teddy. which is FINE with me.

i think that fdr and jfk and truman must be spinning int heir graves right now with the way the dcems are behaving.

today, fdr - of the four freedoms speech - and the jfk of his inaugural - would be called NEO-CON HAWKS.

and i'd rather be with them than be with the deaniacs.

cathyf
Guess who uttered the following quote:

"This case is not about a whistle-blower. Its about a potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

And he named the "whistle-blower" that he meant?

cathy :-)

The Unbeliever

Admittedly, I haven't been paying too close attention to Plamegate, so there's probably an easy answer/link for my question: do we actually know that the agents who were (allegedly?) questioning Wilson's neighbors were sent specifically on Fitzgerald's request? Is it possible they're part of a second investigation, and just had really bad timing this week?

(Just curious, I've seen many comments speculating on why they're questioning neighbors, but no definitive citation on who actually sent them.)

Geek, Esq.

"And he named the "whistle-blower" that he meant?"

He didn't mention that water runs downhill, and that bears shit in the woods.

Rick Ballard

Cathyf,

If he had just come out and named Libby and Rove as whistleblowers it would have compromised his investigation.

Reliapundit - I've found that using Preeviw helps in keeping my posts readable.

BurbankErnie

Geek,
What the Heck is potential retaliation?
You retaliate or you don't.
And this statement was right before Miller went to Jail, and Cooper sold his Soul.

We can both speculate all we want, but until D-Day, we are both guessing.

Sue

Mark Levin on September 29th phone call from Fitzgerald to Wilson:

IF this is accurate, it suggests to me that if Wilson was under investigation or in any prosecutorial danger, Fitzgerald would not be free to call Wilson directly and in such an informal manner.

Geek, Esq.

"What the Heck is potential retaliation?"

It means that there may have been retaliation against a whistle-blower.


"If he had just come out and named Libby and Rove as whistleblowers it would have compromised his investigation."

In the same way that Tolkien would have ruined the suspense in Lord of the Rings by fingering Sauron as the good guy.


cathyf

Yep, geek, it's really easy to prove a thing when you start out assuming that it is true as your first step...

cathy :-)

Jon H

"How odd that in all this time no such person (someone who is a first-hand witness to the idea that she was "well known") has been produced by the army of Rove defenders (from Luskin on down to you)."

Well, when you have someone like Cliff May saying that, and Cliff May associates with hawkish ex-heads of the CIA and others who might have encountered Plame at CIA, getting too specific could lead to Cliff May's buddies being hauled up on charges because *they* leaked her identity.

That'd really throw a wet blanket on the PNAC's cocktail parties.

Jon H

Regarding the supposed 'civil rights' charge: seems like an odd choice to me, but it would create an amusing situation.

When Fitz was trying to get journalists to testify, there was a lot of noise in the media about how he was an 'out of control' prosecutor and menace to 1st Amendment rights.

It'd be funny if, now, this 'monster' indicted someone in government for infringing on Joe Wilson's 1st Amendment rights.

clarice

Sue, Levin right as a general matter, but remember the source of that report is Wilson (a liar)and as I noted some time ago, it may have not been Fitz who called but someone in his office respecting a ministerial matter--i.e., did he have counsel upon whom papers could be served or a communication from the sp directed.

Sue

Clarice,

As much as I would like you to be right, I suspect you are chasing a pie.

Geek, Esq.

This is like debating the Flat Earth Society.

Jon  H


Moment of logic:

We know Wilson is a confirmed attention-hound, with easy access to media (now, anyway).

Wilson would have certainly figured out a while ago if Fitzgerald were investigating him with an eye towards indictment.

If Wilson noticed this, how likely is it that he would keep quiet, rather than going on Air America and the web to complain that Fitzgerald's investigation had been corrupted by the White House and redirected at him?

It's not likely at all. It's far more likely that Wilson would take to the media and engage in round 2 of the squabble.

topsecretk9

The problem with the men in black canvassing the neighborhood this late in the game is that it goes contrary to what the left been arguing as it pertains to WH officials. That is high level officials knowingly leaked "classified" info in an effort to smear Wilson.

Now, did Rove and Libby receive this information from one of Wilsons neighbors? Establishing a fact of how covert her covertness was now, makes no sense if the CIA says she was covert. If neighbors know, it is besides the point when it relates to Libby and Rove. If Fitz has a case against Rove and Libby it should make no difference NOW wether a few or a lot of neighbors know anything. Say two neighbor fess up as knowing, um does that get Rove and Libby off the hook if the CIA says she was covert and they knew and knowingly leaked it? No, unless Rove or Libby received this info from them. The opposite is true too. If no neighbors know, how in the hoopla does that help with an indictment against Libby or Rove if they knowingly leaking "classified" info in an effort to smear Wilson?

ordi

Geek, This is like debating the Flat Earth Society.

You'd know since you are a member in good standing!

clarice

jukebox--as to your claim WIlson never told the reporters he saw the forgeries--I remind you of Pincus's piece this week (remember Pincus was the author of the first WaPo article re Wilson's claims):

[quote]Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken[/quote]

Now,he never claimed to Pincus he'd seen the CIA reports and, in fact, he denied to the SSCI that he had, so the implication of his report to Pincus was that he had seen the documents himself, a position he took even before the SSCI until they advised him that was an impossibility given we hadn't them until 8 months after he said he saw them.

Appalled Moderate

Jon H:

Real good point on Wilson.

cathyf

Yeah, Jon, excellent point. But maybe you overestimate his cunning and underestimate both his delusions of grandeur and persecution complex. This week the only spin we've seen initiated was Wilson's plea to DU predicting that he was going to be attacked. And WAPO setting themselves up to throw Joe overboard. The Administration flacks, on the other hand, have limited themselves to a reaction to the MSNBC feint.

So perhaps that's what we see the start of: "Wilson would take to the media and engage in round 2 of the squabble."

cathy :-)

Jon H

clarice writes: "a position he took even before the SSCI until they advised him that was an impossibility given we hadn't them until 8 months after he said he saw them"

Unless we had a transcription (ie, hand-typed or verbally dictated copy) of the information on the documents, without having the actual documents or actual facsimilies of them.

topsecretk9

Geek
Is there a person with a club to your head forcing you to debate?

Syl

re the fbi guys asking neighbors again...

I mentioned this up top. I've changed my mind about fitz' reason. If it's true that a juror is skeptical about val being really covert and not bragging to friends and neighbors, fitz is sending guys around the neighborhood to make double sure she was.

Geek, Esq.

Now, did Rove and Libby receive this information from one of Wilsons neighbors? Establishing a fact of how covert her covertness was now, makes no sense if the CIA says she was covert. If neighbors know, it is besides the point when it relates to Libby and Rove. If Fitz has a case against Rove and Libby it should make no difference NOW wether a few or a lot of neighbors know anything. Say two neighbor fess up as knowing, um does that get Rove and Libby off the hook if the CIA says she was covert and they knew and knowingly leaked it? No, unless Rove or Libby received this info from them. The opposite is true too. If no neighbors know, how in the hoopla does that help with an indictment against Libby or Rove if they knowingly leaking "classified" info in an effort to smear Wilson?

There are multiple statutes involved here--including the IIPA and The Espionage Act.

The common defense from Republicans to the charges against Libby et al is that she wasn't really covert.

Now, the CIA's designation of her as covert was certainly some evidence of that. But, we can't take what the government tells us at face value.

So, a little investigation was warranted. Was she really covert? If everyone really did know that she was a CIA operative, then the CIA's description of her as such is quetionable--especially when we're talking about a criminal case.

Note that this is a separate issue from the knowledge/intent possessed by the leakers. They didn't know what the neighbors knew.

topsecretk9

Syl
Doesn't matter if CIA says she is covert...see me up top too.

Rick Ballard

JonH,

Any guess as to how he would have had the transcripts eight months ahead of the "official" CIA receipt of same? Is Lucy Ramirez a neighbor of the Wilson's?

owl

Why were the FBI back with the neighbors? They had a stack of photos and wanted to know if anyone had seen that bunch of suspicious looking ex-CIAs and reporters going in and out besides their July 4th party.

topsecretk9

But, we can't take what the government tells us at face value.

are you talking about CIA telling Fitz whether or not she is covert?

I don't get that

topsecretk9

They had a stack of photos and wanted to know if anyone had seen that bunch of suspicious looking ex-CIAs and reporters going in and out besides their July 4th party.

Are you being punchy?

Sue

Jon H,

How do you explain his comments to the SSIC? "I misspoke." He didn't say he saw it somewhere else, he said media accounts. Drats...foiled again. :)

Sue

What happened to my post?

topsecretk9

Hey Syl...just had a thought...could relate to your sneakies theory...WINPAC vs. DO ---Rove and Libby thinking she worked for WINPAC because that is the cover the Wilson put out...when she really works at DO and should have been more careful

Jim E.

Waas has a new post up. He has no clue what is going down. He breaks zero news. Just thought I'd let people know it's not worth reading.

Sue

What happened to my post?

Sue

What happened to my post?

topsecretk9

Thanks Jim E

type pad is going hanky again...I'm going to mac's place for the time being

Syl

Re Wilson seeing the documents.

I'm kinda unsure about that. Because what I thought Wilson meant was that he mixed up the IAEA stuff in his head and he thought he himself had seen them.

Which is bs and him just trying to weasle out of his previous lie.

Wilson, I'm sure, thinks his weird memory will excuse him, but not Libby or Rove or Judy.

--------

But really, I think Wilson is a spook himself because the whole Niger thing is so twisted it's just like, well, disinformation.

To parse it out is tiring because it twists up more than two things. So you really have to think about it hard and not give up.

He had to leave the impression that:

Cheney was involved in sending him.
Therefore Cheney would definitely get his report.
He knew specific details of the document
He, himself, discovered the documents were forged.
His debunking of the document debunked all sales and attempts to purchase by Iraq in all of Africa in everyone's mind.
Cheney saw his report and ignored it.
Therefore Bush lied with the 16 words.

It was a masterful job. I think how he did it should be studied in school.

I even suspect someone else may have written the actual op-ed. He wasn't as careful talking with Kristoff and Pincus orally. Maybe Val actually wrote it. So maybe she is, actually, a pretty good spook.

ed

rick, Josh Marshall has been reporting for a while now that the original info on Niger that the Brits had was basically a transcript of the forged docs and they had been passed along.

ed

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006829.php

Public Citizen

Have any of you seen the article in the New York Sun that Fitzgerald met with Chief Judge Hogan after the grand jury adjourned? http://www.nysun.com/article/22112 (warning: it is difficult to get the article to load.) Is Fitzgerald asking for an extension of the grand jury?

Trained Auditor

I have a bad feeling about this, if Fitzgerald refers to Wilson to in the following:

"This case is not about a whistle-blower," Fitzgerald added. "It's about potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."
If Fitzgerald has bought into the idea that Wilson is a whistle-blower that Rove-Libby were out to punish, the game is over. If Fitzgerald is that deluded, I predict he'll indict Libby, Rove and their underlings on multiple classified info charges, as well as perjury, obstruction, and conspiracy. More than that, he may indict Cheney, and cite the President as an unidicted co-conspirator.

I say this because to believe Wilson is a whistle-blower instead of a liar, and that efforts to expose his lies were retaliation, means you must be either clueless to the point of mental incompetence, which by reputation Fitzgerald is not, or be a faithful disciple of the Bush-hating "Bush Lied, People Died" cult.

Given the misperception betrayed by Fitzgerald's quote above, I now have a very bad feeling about how this ends for the Bush team.

Neo

SO they say that the grand jury has gone home and Fitzgerald had a 3 hour meeting with the Chief Judge.

Did the grand jury "stiff" Fitzgerald ?
Are they going to extend the grand jury till they are convinced ?

Geek, Esq.

Well, I think we can strike all the "Indictments to be announced this afternoon" folks from the Rolls of the Credible.

Syl

ed

Yeah, that's what he wishes. The Brits aren't that stupid. And in fact that's one part of the butler report that the opposition signed off on easily. They had no contention with it.

So Josh is wrong on that one.

Top

"Rove and Libby thinking she worked for WINPAC because that is the cover the Wilson put out"

Oh, yes. The Wilsons seems to be masters at putting out disinformation. If anyone knew she was CIA, it was as an analyst.

BTW, for the initial charge to be investigated, of course it matters that she's NOC.

It's what's learned in the damage assessment and then what the secondary effects are. Part of that is discovering how much and what was known before the actual outing as well as after. If the damage is too much, then the info is officially declassified and indictments brought.

I get confused on this a bit. My guy investigated leaks of classified info and tried to get a couple concepts through my head. Each time I answered back what I thought he was telling me, I had it not quite right.

It really does take a shift in perspective.

Remember when I posted about cover/non-covert at CIA and how it was necessary to check the status before saying anyone worked at CIA? If the status was classified, then no comment. And that was why Harlow goofed?

It took a while for that to sink in, because it was looking at it differently and the brain had to adjust.

Rick Ballard

Ed,

Josh Marshall? "I've got inside information that a HUGE story will break in..." That Josh Marshall?

I enjoy fantasy - but only when it's clearly labeled as such.

arrowhead

"Given the misperception betrayed by Fitzgerald's quote above, I now have a very bad feeling about how this ends for the Bush team."

Trained Auditor - I fear that you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Tollhouse

It's late afternoon! Where are my indictments!!!

Are you telling me all those reporters and bloggers were wrong!!!

Oh well, there's always tomorrow. And friday. And Saturday. And Sunday. And next Monday...

Syl

Trained Auditor

That was at the very beginning! He hadn't even started yet.

Geek, Esq.

"I say this because to believe Wilson is a whistle-blower instead of a liar, and that efforts to expose his lies were retaliation, means you must be either clueless to the point of mental incompetence, which by reputation Fitzgerald is not, or be a faithful disciple of the Bush-hating "Bush Lied, People Died" cult."

Shorter Trained Auditor: Everyone who disagrees with me is insane or evil.

Syl

ed

Dont' worry about the forgeries so much. They really are meaningless.

(1)they were of a sales agreement
(2)the intelligence community was skeptical of the reports a sales agreement anyway.
(3) the intelligence reports felt it was highly likely that Saddam was shopping around for yellowcake.

The documents are only interesting in that they were in the system and the motive has always been fun to play with.

But they had no affect on the case for war.

clarice

ts--Here's a Maguffin about the interviews last night.
One of the first if not the first report in the WaPo about the FBI investigation reported that the FBI interviewed a private citizen in his home in DC, a person who'd called in something relevant about the case to the WH.

Is it possible that someone called the WH, said he was a neighbor of Plame's and that he knew she was in the CIA, that she and/ or Joe told him and others at some neighborhood party? And that the FBI has twice tried to verify that claim?

Geek, Esq.

I say this because to believe Wilson is a whistle-blower instead of a liar, and that efforts to expose his lies were retaliation, means you must be either clueless to the point of mental incompetence, which by reputation Fitzgerald is not, or be a faithful disciple of the Bush-hating "Bush Lied, People Died" cult.

Shorter Trained Auditor: Everyone who disagrees with me is insane or stupid.

clarice

Oh, yeah, what happened to Johnson's crack reporter Sale's hot tip? Reme,ber that in considering the credibility of anything from either of these two..

Trained Auditor

Geek: Only when one the other alternative, being simply mistaken, is not viable because the truth is obvious, as in this circumstance.

Hoodlumman

I think it was Professor Plum in the kitchen with the candlestick...

Geek, Esq.

It's good to see that someone got the "Smear Fitzgerald" memo.

I was beginning to worry about wingnuts' ability to march in lockstep behind The Party.

Tollhouse

Actually all these leaks might be right, but when people are getting prosecuted for politcal acts, do you think anyone wants to get out ahead on this with a Special Prosecutor on the prowl and release REAL info? Hehe. Funny theory to think about though.

1-5 maybe less maybe more maybe tonight maybe tomorrow maybe never. Read that CNN article I linked to earler.

Syl

clarice

I like your Maguffin! :)

But if true, it means they weren't able to verify earlier. Fitz is doing everything he can to keep from handing down a serious indictment.

I don't know if that should make me feel good or bad.

DirtyName

OK, Geek. Let's say you are right and Fitz wants to indict.

How do you get from INDICTMENT to GUILT, knowing what we know?

I'd absolutely LOVE to be Karl Rove's defense attorney if he gets indicted. Can you imagine the all out war that is going to take place?

My #1 defense tactic will be to force the CIA/Wilson/Plame nexus to demonstrate that some harm was INTENTIONALLY done.

The Administration has every right to defend itself in the court of public opinion, to correct the record, etc.

So unless The Fitz has a smoking gun to prove that Rove/Libby willingly outed a known covert operative, there is NO WAY he can get a conviction.

Therefore, he may choose not to indict for that reason, even if he has enough evidence to bring the indictments...

Looking forward to your reply.

AS you know, we are innocent until proven guilty.

The Unbeliever

I'm mildly surprised that with all the rumors and speculation flying around this week, no one has started a fantasy football-esque betting pool on who gets indicted, what they get indicted for, and the number of indictments per person. I know Tradesports is out there, but that's contracts on individual outcomes; anyone want to start a tracker to bet on the entire outcome of Fitz's investigation?

If nothing else, it'd help us keep track (after the fact) of which commenters were the most correct in their predictions.

Sue

How odd. The FBI interviewed the same neighbor for the 2nd time. Why would they interview the same neighbor about the same thing?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'If Fitzgerald has bought into the idea that Wilson is a whistle-blower that Rove-Libby were out to punish, the game is over.'

Exactly right. It's circular reasoning, but there's no law that a prosecutor can't engage in logical fallacies to get an indictment.

Another such would be that he could prove Valerie was covert by not uncovering any of her neighbors who knew otherwise.

So, the only question is how much mustard he's going to put on this ham sandwich.

topsecretk9

Sue
that is what I think is oddish too! To get the same answer?

Clarice
I am not convinced this is new info or old info, I think this was more of a stunt to provide a little pressure. Can't feel good to see men in black crawling around your neighborhood AGAIN with reporters staked out to see

CaseyL

I say this because to believe Wilson is a whistle-blower instead of a liar, and that efforts to expose his lies were retaliation, means you must be either clueless to the point of mental incompetence, which by reputation Fitzgerald is not, or be a faithful disciple of the Bush-hating "Bush Lied, People Died" cult.

Given the misperception betrayed by Fitzgerald's quote above, I now have a very bad feeling about how this ends for the Bush team.

Trained Auditor, you are obviously in possession of critical evidence that Fitzgerald doesn't have. I strongly suggest you call his office and offer up that evidence.

topsecretk9

Clarice

Kind of sends a message of not trusting previous information

DirtyName

Yes, the old "ham sandwich" cliche...

But while any prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, there is no similar saying for "convictions."

And the very real prospect of obtaining a conviction and not looking like an ass is looming large in The Fitz's mind right now.

He's weighing his options, and there can be no doubt there is going to be an extension...

After all, when you are faced with the possibility of bringing a weak set of indictments vs. closing up shop completely, but you have the option of extending the inquiry to gather additional evidence by putting pressure on people, why not extend?

He needs a smoking gun, and I just don't think he has it...yet.

And I hope he never gets it, because I'd like nothing more than to watch the MSM implode upon themselves.

Geek, Esq.

OK, Geek. Let's say you are right and Fitz wants to indict.

How do you get from INDICTMENT to GUILT, knowing what we know?
We wouldn't. But, we don't know what Fitz knows.


I'd absolutely LOVE to be Karl Rove's defense attorney if he gets indicted. Can you imagine the all out war that is going to take place?

My #1 defense tactic will be to force the CIA/Wilson/Plame nexus to demonstrate that some harm was INTENTIONALLY done.
Are you talking about the IIPA or the Espionage Act? The IIPA doesn't require a showing of harm, while the Espionage Act only requires that the defendant "have reason to believe" that the providing of the information in question could harm the US or help a foreign nation.


The Administration has every right to defend itself in the court of public opinion, to correct the record, etc.

By all legal means, correct.


So unless The Fitz has a smoking gun to prove that Rove/Libby willingly outed a known covert operative, there is NO WAY he can get a conviction.

Therefore, he may choose not to indict for that reason, even if he has enough evidence to bring the indictments...

All that they really need to show is that the leakers KNEW that she was NOC or that her status was secret. If they did that, and leaked her name, they broke the law.

Looking forward to your reply.

AS you know, we are innocent until proven guilty.

Legally, yes. Politically and personally, indictments do a hell of a lot of damage. I would hope that Fitzgerald only indicts if he seriously has the goods on someone.

But, it's very likely that he'll exercise proper discretion. As Machiavelli said, "Do not wound the prince." If you're going to hunt big game like Cheney and Rove, you better not bring a slingshot.

Geek, Esq.

How odd. The FBI interviewed the same neighbor for the 2nd time. Why would they interview the same neighbor about the same thing?

Again, it could be that they asked him a slightly different question.

For example, they could have asked him "Did you know that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative?" the first time, but asked him "Did you know that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?" the second time.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame