Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Harriet Miers Out? (From live TV - CNBC) | Main | Law And Laughter »

October 27, 2005

Comments

Jenny B.

I agree, with Libby it's a one day story...with Rove it will be a one week story. Who cares? Bring on the hardcore conservative SC nominee!!!!

Jim E.

Let's say it's "only" Libby. It's not a one day story. With a trial next spring, and with Rove (or other senior administraiton officials) as a possible witness, it will continue to have legs. Once the indictments happen, the story -- and the trials -- will just be starting. Most Americans haven't been following this story, but the words "criminal indictments" will wake then up quick, even if it's merely Libby on the chopping block.

And there's always the off-chance that Fitzy starts up a brand new GJ.

pollyusa

I hope for your sake Fitz makes his announcement in the morning.

SteveMG

I agree with Jim E (yikes, one of us is in trouble).

Even if it's *only* Cheney's mouth and a few underlings if there are conspiracy charges then the question remains who knew what and when. When did the conspirators get together, how did they agree on the conspiracy, who directed it?

If the conspiracy can be traced to Cheney's inner sanctum, then a whole set of questions can be asked. With legitimacy (hell, even without legitimacy as anyone who has followed this in the press realizes, cf. the Chris Matthews and David Shuster nightly routine).

Just think of the headlines for the next six months: "Libby in Conspiracy Trial", "VP Testifies in Conspiracy Case".

Ugh or yay, depending on where you sit.

SMG

Jenny B.

LOL. Keep on dreaming Jim Bob. People laugh at the main stream media these days. They no longer have a lock on news. I do hope Wilson gets more press...he is Mama Sheehan in a suit!

This Miers withdrawl has brought the GOP back together and any indictments will make the GOP even stronger. Bring it on!!!!!!!

By the way, no indictment on Rove, so don't get too excited. :D

Cecil Turner

Ugh or yay, depending on where you sit.

If so, I expect there'll be something for everyone. At the very least, Wilson's story will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. (And the fairly obvious improprieties in the mission, his leaks, and the problems with his op-ed will make interesting copy.) As a practical matter, however, I expect much of the proceedings would have to be classified. Dunno how that would affect the coverage, but you'd expect it to be a significant distractor.

clarice

If it's the JANITOR O'Donnell and Matthews, et al will make it a big deal; if there are NO indictments they will also make it a big deal (screaming something about the SP)..Face it, without an idea, this kind of crap is all they have in their quiver, and since Bush isn't running again , time is running out on a P-L-A-N which consists of more than reworking "I'm gonna fight for you" and hiring Shrum to piss away Soros' money..LOL

Jim E.

Waas has a new blog item. He's basically drawing attention to his new National Journal story. In his comments, though, he goes out of his way to emphasize an obscure name: David Addington. Is Waas dropping a hint about the Plame investigation?

Rick Ballard

TM,

Radio silence?

Do we need to take up a collection for a 'friendly' visit from Sal and Vin? I mean, given that there's no tip jar to hit to provide a positive stimulus.

SteveMG

Re David Addington

VP's Counsel.

clarice

Jim--No --this is about the administration;s refusal to turn over drafts of a speech to the Intel Committee--they did so on solid grounds, they reflected internal deliberative proceedings of the Executive.

Now, if Congress and the Judiciary are willing to turn over drafts of their reports and opinions to the Executive there 's a point..LOL..Nothing . And no connection of Addington to Plame case that I can see.

politicaobscura

Jim E., you're in fantasyland again... if it is just Libby, they'll be no trial - just a plea deal....

Rick Ballard

Tom Maguire,

I'd like to thank you for the service you have performed in following this matter. Your attention to detail and the insights you have provided have been extraordinary.

Thank you very much,

Rick Ballard

PS - If you must lay it aside for the weekend - Sal and Vin will stay home.

clarice

TM--Not only have you shared your analyses with us, provided us with all the best cites in one place, but for most of us you have offered up a pleasant substitute for much needed therapy..;)

Keith

Hey Tom,

Just curious: I'm not wanting to stalk you or anything, but who the hell are you? What do you do for living? How old are you? Did you get a degree, and if so, what was it in?

Maybe this is on the blog somewhere, but I can't find it. Share as much or as little as you like, but after spending months reading you on this case, I've always wondered.

Jim E.

Drudge says Rove will NOT be charged.

Jim E.

From NY Times: Rove "will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday."

Er, if this is true, my above comment about how this is NOT a one day story holds up pretty well.

SteveMG

Drudge:
Drudge says:
Rove not charged but remains under investigation (who isn't?).

Libby charged with making false statements. That's pretty weak considering what we imagined.

If no charges on conspiracy or perjury or violations of IIPA or classified material, then this is a big loss for the left.

Merry Fitzmas, bah humbug.

SMG

Jenny B.

Told ya!!!! And Libby is extended to investigate leaks from CIA...nothing about WH!!!

Drudge: ROVE NOT TO BE CHARGED LIBBY, TOP AIDE TO CHENEY, APPEARS LIKELY TO FACE INDICTMENT

Jenny B.

I meant GJ extended to look into leaks from CIA.

Rove Rocks!!!!!

Scooter = false statments...LOL!!!

Merry Fitzmas, Lefties!!!

Jim E.

Did you guys miss the part about the GJ likely to be extended?

Jeff

In case you haven't found the Waas piece, it's here. It's quite interesting, especially if you pay attention to the sourcing. I'll admit I'm not surprised to see that clarice has already rationalized it away. I don't think she's ever met a Republican impropriety she won't rationalize away. And as for her comment about ideas, the bit about Democrats not having them is effective politics, but not true. On the other hand, Republicans have very effective slogans, it's true, but I'm not sure they amount to ideas. They certainly aren't beliefs, if by beliefs you mean something from which you can predict their conduct (see, inter alia, Republican government in action on fiscal matters, war, democracy promotion, and so on).

But back to the Waas piece. Even if we concede clarice's lame excuse, the fact remains that the validity and completeness of the SSCI report is seriously thrown into doubt by Waas' reporting with regard to at least one very important matter. That's for you, Cecil.

Public Citizen

Is Drudge's source, the New York Times, considered to be reliable?!

SteveMG

If all Fitzgerald can come up after two years of this sturm und drang is charging Libby with making false statements then it's over.

Rove walks but continues to be under investigation? For what? Either charge him or clear his name.

Merry Fitzmas? Bah humbug.

No doubt the coverup and conspiracy charges will emanate from the usual suspects, those who think Iraq and al-Qaeda had no relationship.

SMG

Gary Maxwell

Guys much as I want it to be true please remember the reporter is Drudge. Ugh. The only person who I can think of with a spottier record is Dick Morris. (Maybe John Zogby too).

But if its right!, it will be left wing nut suicide watch time. Come in off the ledge buddy, you still have DeLay ( chuckle chuckle smirk).

Jenny B.

Hey Jim Bob,
The CIA needs to worry about the GJ extension, not the WH!

Rove for Supreme Court!!!

boris

So, it appears no laws broken until the investigation conjured something out of smoke. Fitz jumps the shark.

clarice

NYT

[quote]WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

As rumors coursed through the capital, Mr. Fitzgerald gave no public signal of how he intends to proceed, further intensifying the anxiety that has gripped the White House and left partisans on both sides of the political aisle holding their breath.

Mr. Fitzgerald's preparations for a Friday announcement were shrouded in secrecy, but advanced amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions that left open the possibility of last-minute surprises. As the clock ticked down on the grand jury, people involved in the case did not rule out the disclosure of previously unknown aspects of the case(more)[/quote] http://nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?ei=5094&en=f4b9e5edc0a35fdf&hp=&ex=1130472000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Jenny B.

Drudge links to NYT article (not that they can be trusted either).

Keith

TM is two for two!

SteveMG

Jim E.:
Climb down from the ledge, it'll be okay.

Given the expectations that have been generated over the past two weeks, for the only (apparent) charge to be for Libby making false statements this is sound and fury time - signifying nada.

What will the GJ investigate that they haven't? After two years of this, if Fitzgerald can't nail Rove for IIPA violations or mishandling classified information, he won't be able to get him later.

To be sure, one never knows what will turn up later. But this is a big loss for Bush critics.

No other way to spin things.

SMG

clarice

Authors of article DAVID JOHNSTON
and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

How reliable have they been? Anyone know?

PaulS

I sincerely hope that Fitzgerald makes public what he's been up to for the past two years.

Indicting Libby on a much lesser charge than his original mandate is one thing--it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it's not unusual for these kinds of investigation.

However, failing over two years to compile enough evidence to indict Rove even on a much lesser charge, and then telling him in essence that he's under permanent "investigation"? That's downright Kafkaesque.

I have a theory: Fitzgerald attempted to indict Rove but the grand jury turned him down (something which would explain his behavior over the past few days). But not wanting to give up, Fitz is determined to keep this going as long as possible.

Jim E.

The NY Times seems to have the most confident sources. Heck, maybe the NY Times has the best sources, and is spot on. But two other just-posted stories are more tenative about Rove.

Here's the LA Times:
"People close to the investigation said that, as of late Thursday afternoon, Rove had received no notice that he was going to be indicted. Some observers took that as a sign that the longtime Bush strategist might emerge from the investigation without being charged.

But others said that Fitzgerald might be waiting until Friday to alert those being charged to reduce the chances of last-minute leaks about his intentions."

And the Wash Post similarly has Rove still holding his breath.

For me, I think the NY Times seems to know more than the other papers. Therefore, Rove I wouldn't expect Rove to be indicted. But I thought I'd share the other two accounts.

clarice

I expect that the "people briefed about the case" were briefed by his counsel and they did so after they heard from Fitz..

Keith

I think the idea of Rove still being under investigation makes sense. They probably told him, "You're not off the hook if something else comes up and we find out you lied--and our investigation will still be ongoing through the Libby trial."

So, he's off the hook, but if they find something later, they reserve the right to indict him.

politicaobscura

Whatever the result tomorrow, it would be pathetic to extend the grand jury. This issue has been with us for a year and half and Fitz STILL doesn't have his ducks in a row?? Sad.

Dumbguy

What is the difference between "perjury" and "making false statements"?

clarice

Yes--but it surely will not be adequate for the left--some Fitzmas--


I think we ought to demand a Federal statute forbidding such things again--if there is no crime a regular prosecutor operating under regular reules can find and prosecute in a reasonable period of time--fergettaboutit..Who wants to take a pay cut, work his rearend off only to have stuff like this always hanging over him?

Jim E.

Back to the NY Times article. Their lead paragraphs are definitive about Rove's fate. But a bit further down, they have this sentence:
"Mr. Fitzgerald's preparations for a Friday announcement were shrouded in secrecy, but advanced amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions that left open the possibility of last-minute surprises."

Seems like they're covering themselves for just about anything with that "possibility of last-minute surprises" phrase.

PaulS

If Fitzgerald has indictments in hand and wants to spring this information on his targets in a press conference without letting them have time to prepare public statements or a legal strategy, then he has all the instincts of a Stalin era Soviet Kommissar.

There's absolutely NO legitimate reason to be so obsessed with leaks that a need for secrecy could outweigh the need for fundamental decency. What possible damage could be done to his investigation that would warrant keeping the knowledge of indictments from the accused?

Although I'm troubled by Fitgerald's desire to investigate people for years in secret--even in the absence of enough evidence for a simple perjury charge--I don't believe yet that he's an unethical bastard.

Hence, if Rove hasn't been told by NOW that he's been indicted, then he hasn't been.

Gary Maxwell

How about this for a real liberal mind blower. Bush comes out and announces Libby to stay in WH as he is innocent until proven guilty. And then Ann Coulter starts a big deal about the Dems said perjury was no bar to working in the WH so that he wont ever even have to resign.

Or is it just perjury about blowjobs? I am confused.

Jerry Miller

The NYT sources are Rove & Libby attorneys. Fitz called them today as a courtesy before his announcement tomorrow. There may be other indictments, but not for those two.

Gary Maxwell

Trade Sport contract on Rove srops to 20. Come on Libs you can make a killing. Just step right up and lay your Hailtons down. Besides you wont need it where you are going when you step off the ledge anyway.

bethl

don't remember where I read this---but this grand jury has already been extended once and can't be extended again, if that's right Fitzgerald will need a new grand jury to keep investigating Rove.

Geek, Esq.

I think Rove does escape for now.

But, this is going to be more than a one day story.

And we'll see what the future brings.

And, everyone can now take Raw Story off their blogroll.

Jeff

I'll say this -- either the NYT or the WaPo is going to look pretty bad tomorrow, as there are just downright contradictions between their stories, such as: FItz is extending the investigation/no he's not. Of course, it could be the best of both worlds for Rove: he's not going to be indicted tomorrow, and Fitz is not extending the grand jury.

I do find it pretty surprising that the indictment of the Vice President's right-hand man is being seen as a victory for conservatism.

Jerry Miller

Where's pollyusa? I'd like to hear her insight about the these latest revelations.

PaulS

Since this grand jury's term CANNOT by law be extended yet again, then an entirely new grand jury will have to be assembled. That much is known.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I wonder: is Fitzgerald permitted to investigate the very same charges he failed to get out of the first grand jury or does he need to come up with a totally different angle?

If he's alowed to pursue the same charges, then why have time limits on investigations at all? How would seeking indictments from as second grand jury that couldn't be extracted from the first grand jury be different from Ronnie Earl's grand jury shopping in Texas?

I must say that this is deeply disturbing unless we get what we haven't had until now: a clear explanation of what Fitzgerald is up to. At least Ken Starr was able to bring charges and didn't ask for 2, 3 or 4 years to hound people without the clear ability or intention of bringing indictments.

Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)

If you're silent, we'll miss you, Tom. I mean, since Instapundit tipped me off to one of your posts, you've saved me a lot of work as I research my own on this imbroglio.

You've done a good job on this -- and with good humor.

We'll be glad to have you back on Monday.

windansea

Tom...looks like you may have called it right...surprised you haven't red penned Waas yet...up to now he's been fiarly accurate...this latest effort is a far left dreamscape where Cheney and Rumsfield are set up as pinatas for the anti war crowd and democrats with fingers in the wind trying to retract their pro war votes

I am convinced that elements in the CIA allowed obvious forged documents to sit in a safe for 6 months because they wanted to make Cheney etc look bad...tell me all you want about ruffled feathers or challenges to the accuracy of this info...the CIA had those docs for 6 months and they never declared them forgeries until the IAEA report....and their guy did it in six hours

Hersh's CIA source was right...somebody let this happen on purpose

I hope Libby is allowed to fight...he may have committed perjury and for this he deserves a spanking....but as designated point man to refute Wilson's lies I applaud him...he may have been caught in 1-2 lies in a one sided process where he must testify without counsel...virtually everything Wilson has said or allowed to be written have been proven false.

Our resident geeks and lefties keep on defending Joe like fools...kind of funny since Kerry dropped him like a hot potato a long time ago.

enjoy your new set of steak knives

hmmmm.... Ted Olsen would make a great Supreme

Geek, Esq.

I have to say, that if the only thing they have on Rove is his omission of the Matt Cooper discussion, that's pretty weak and not something I can see indicting for without STRONG evidence of intent.

I'm still a bit suprised that that's the extent of his complicity, but c'est la vie.

ArminTamizarian

Aren't federal prosecutors supposed to tell people when they've become targets?

Lesley

Tom's probably spending his weekend with his investment advisor chortling over the gadzillions he made at Tradespots (wink).

TM

Thanks for the kind words, folks (and Keith, it is far from obvious, but this started as an anona-blog; I do need to work up some disclosure statement).

I will hold off the tedious gloating until we get some real announcements, but wow.

SteveMG

Jeff:
"That the indictment of the Vice President's right-hand man is being seen as a victory for conservatism."

Not a victory for conservatism but a huge defeat for the left and its conspiracy peddlers.

The entire leftist conspiracy edifice appears to have been destroyed. This was not part of a larger conspiracy to reveal Plame's status or to get back at Wilson illegally or to cover up pre-war intelligence or to hide the authors of the Niger documents or any other leftwing smear.

All that has been shown to be nonsense on stilts.

Nope, not a victory for conservatism, but a huge blow for leftwing smear merchants who continue to believe that, as Hitchens can explain far more powerfully than me, defeating Bush and neocons is more important than defeating the terrorists.

SMG

Jerry Miller

As this news breaks tomorrow, all of America will be saying: " 'Scooter'? What the hell are you talking about? "

Larry Queen

"WOODWARD: No, no. And this is not even a firecracker, but it's true. They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge James or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/27/lkl.01.html

paul

There is more to the investigation.

An excerpt from the (future) book "Fitzgerald, My Story":

As I am sitting, listening to this guy, Larry Johnson, for some background, the guy starts babbling about how this whole War was cooked up.

I ask him how he knows, and the idiot tells me.

He tells me about twenty people and other 'covert' in th CIA who have shown him classified documents proving this is all a lie. I'm wondering to myself, is this the dumbest person in the world?"


Somebody may have shown a little thread in their questioning, and Fitzgerald just pulled the string.

I have seen both Gergen and Buchanan allude to something much deeper than what we see on the surface. I trust both of them on this.

windansea

Woodward is right...Brewster and Jennings was a phone number and PO Box....

Wilson lied...phone numbers died

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

Lesley

This might apply to Libby. Let the attorneys opine.

False Statements Act

Al

TM: you should also put up a tip jar...

clarice

Re the difference between perjury and making a fale statement:
Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1000-perjury

Title 18 U.s.c. Sections 1621,1623--(lesser offense)
I do not have lexis and am having a hard time pulling up these sections online--maybe someone else can do it--

Al

To give people an idea -- violations of the False Statements Act (18 USC 1001) was several of the counts for which Martha Stewart was convicted...

Jeff

This was not part of a larger conspiracy to reveal Plame's status or to get back at Wilson illegally

Quite a while back, when news broke that, in contradiction to what the Bush administration had officially said and led us to believe, Libby and Rove had both been centrally involved in going after the Wilsons, I remember disagreeing with someone here -- maybe even you, SMG -- who argued that all that mattered was who got indicted. My basic point was: we learned that dishonorable and undignified conduct was done in mighty close proximity to the Oval Office. I suspect that, in political terms, whoever I disagreed with was right: even if it is only the Vice President's right-hand mand who is indicted, it will not be seriously politically damaging to this already quite damaged president. I remember saying that I didn't think restoring honor and dignity to the White House was equivalent to saying, "We won't be indicted," but that it is is evident from the telling qualification to your claim, SMG: there was no illegal retaliation at Wilson or revelation of Plame's identity (assuming that's where Fitz leaves it). So be it. I just find it surprising that, Bush having said he wanted to get to the bottom of it, and that he knew of no one involved, and Libby and Rove having denied they were involved -- I find it surprising that once it turns out Rove, Libby and even Cheney were centrally involved, that's all fine as long as they don't get indicted. Or you are so busy gloating at presumed liberal disappointment that you don't even care.

Two more words. I still think it is important -- and interesting -- to figure out who forged the Niger documents, why, and how they got circulated. I was on record on this at JOM a couple of days ago when we were at the height of maximalist suspicion about indictments. It's important because they helped get us into war, and that's deeply screwed up. For what it's worth too, there are lots of righties who want to do this in order to prove that the documents were a left-wing concoction. I'm on board for finding out.

Finally, don't take Hitchens' projection of his own mindset (when he was on the left and now that he's on the right) as an accurate rendering of the left as such. Defeating the terrorists who threaten us is, for most of us, much more important than defeating Bush, though to be fair, I also happen to believe that Bush has not done a very good job of defeating the terrorists.

Geek, Esq.

A question for our conservative friends:

If all that we're going to see are a few false statement charges against Libby, why the hell did Team Bush and Team Cheney insist on leaking crap all summer?

From what I can tell, Fitzgerald has even less than the press leaks indicated. It's like the administration was trying to pump this up into a bigger scandal or something.

I don't buy the intentional head-fake theory--an indictment of Libby, unaccompanied by more, is simply not a big deal politically.

clarice

title 1001, not 1000 perjury.

BurkettHead

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations,
writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel
or employment practices, or support services, or a document required
by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any
office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.

clarice

Don't know what that "something deeper" is though Mac has been hinting Fitz has been sweating some people at the agency..And some of us have always believed that it's behavior in the Wilson and forged docs thing was peculiar and suspicious..

BurkettHead

Sec. 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever--
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer,
or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true,
willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any
material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title
28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material
matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided
by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or
subscription is made within or without the United States.

BurkettHead

Sec. 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate,
verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under
section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before
or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly
makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other
information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or
other material, knowing the same to contain any false material
declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within
or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section
alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or
grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly
made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that
one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is
false if--
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute
of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set
forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient
for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made
irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in
question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand
jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made
pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at
the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in
which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits
such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under
this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has
not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest
that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient
for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any
particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of
evidence.

Just Passing Through

Slow down. Take a deep breath. Consider the NY Times article's content. There is nothing there but the same scatter shot that's been going on all week. A lot of 'officials', and 'lawyers close to the case' leaking the endgame in a leak investigation.

People are hankering to know what's going to go down. A led coming out whether under the NY Times banner and Drudge picking it up with no more real definition than we've heard all week is not enough to take any farther than speculation.

Relax.

windansea

A question for our conservative friends:

If all that we're going to see are a few false statement charges against Libby, why the hell did Team Bush and Team Cheney insist on leaking crap all summer?

it's called politics dummy

From what I can tell, Fitzgerald has even less than the press leaks indicated. It's like the administration was trying to pump this up into a bigger scandal or something.

LOL...the MSM drove this Bus my "friend"

I don't buy the intentional head-fake theory--an indictment of Libby, unaccompanied by more, is simply not a big deal politically.

you most obviously bought the head fake....care to review your posts?

ahem....if I'm not mistaken it was I....windansea...the snifferator who first coined the head fake theory

arrowhead

"My basic point was: we learned that dishonorable and undignified conduct was done in mighty close proximity to the Oval Office."

We did? As to the charge of "dishonorable and undignified" conduct, I give Wilson the edge there.

topsecretk9

And me that coined...the "snifferator"...which was is richly deserved!!!

clarice

Well good for you Jeff--but having watched the idiotic policies advocated by most of the Dems, the peopl they engage as their experts, and their consistent preference for partisanship over the national interest, I switched parties to become a Republican and it'll be a cold day in hell before I'd vote for anyone left and weak enough on defense to garner a Dem nomination. Truly,After Carter and Clinton, I think anyone would be nuts to trust the Dems with national defense.

PaulS

Windansea, virtually all of the so-called leaks I've seen (though who knows when they're actually leaks from anybody in the know since they're alwasys so poorly sourced and could be coming from the dark side of the moon for all we know) have trended in one direction: against the administration.

If "Team Bush and Team Cheney" were responsbile for leaks of grand jury testimony, then why would those leaks virtually ALWAYS cast the administration under a cloud of suspicion? It doesn't even make sense.

Jeff

On a lighter note: surely some of our conservative friends here must be deeply disappointed if the current reports are true and it's not the Wilsons and assorted members of the alleged liberal MSM who are indicted by Fitzgerald tomorrow, but rather a rather important and high-up figure in the administration, no? To be honest, there seems to have been a lot more certainty on the part of people pushing the idea that the Wilsons and their alleged allies were going down than on the part of those who focused on the administration. Although it's true that Jenny B has asserted that Fitzgerald is keeping his investigation open in order to go after the CIA (that well-known hotbed of liberal Democrats), it's unclear to me what her source for this alleged piece of information is.

Geek, Esq.

My mistake was to assume that Fitzgerald had more than the leaks indicated. For all of his secrecy, it doesn't appear that he kept a whole lot of relevant stuff out of the media.

clarice

Professors Bainbridge and Volokh on the false statements law:

[quote]
Amidst all the comment on the Martha Stewart case, I think the most important point has been missed: the law under which she was convicted is a bad law. I don't mean the securities laws--- that malicious and silly charge was kicked out by the judge. Essentially, what she was found guilty of was lying to policemen. I don't think that should be a crime-- and certainly not with a five-year sentence.


On the statute in question, 18 USC 1001, the "False Statements Act," I highly recommend my former colleague Peter W. Morgan's article, The Undefined Crime of Lying to Congress: Ethics Reform and the Rule of Law, 86 Nw U L Rev 177 (1992). The False Statements Act reaches more (a lot more) than just lying to Congress, and his article surveys its history and some of its abuses.

Eugene Volokh has more: "Cases such as Martha Stewart's may discourage people (even innocent people) from talking to federal authorities at all, because they might fear that some error on their part may be characterized as a lie, and might thus mean criminal punishment."[/quote]http://instapundit.com/archives/014527.php

Let this be a lesson--Don't talk to the FBI or cops--demand to have counsel present and a transcript made that you can read and sign to be sure you haven't made any slip ups..

clarice

Jeff, I will be very surprised if some agency people do not find themselves on the hot seat for their role in this sooner or later.

Jeff

I switched parties to become a Republican

My experience is that the most fervent Democrat-haters were once partisan Democrats. Same views and strategy, just aimed in a different direction. Hitchens is perhaps the most well-known example (though I'm sure he would deny any party affiliation, but you get the idea).

I think anyone would be nuts to trust the Dems with national defense.

I agree that the most important thing the Democrats need to do for electoral success is regain credibility on national security. They are presented with a wonderful opportunity by Bush's utterly terrible record on defense, national security and foreign policy, but I never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch electoral defeat from the jaws of victory. Still, it remains the case that much the most serious thinking about national security is being done on the left these days.

Jeff

Jeff, I will be very surprised if some agency people do not find themselves on the hot seat for their role in this sooner or later.

clarice - as TM says, keep hope alive! Who knows, maybe the reports tonight are not accurate and we'll see it tomorrow.

Rick Ballard

"Still, it remains the case that much the most serious thinking about national security is being done on the left these days."

On the rides on the short buses to and from the special needs school.

clarice

Indeed, Rick. Yesterday Kerry said that we should have followed Shinseki's advice and put in more troops. Five minutes later in the same speech he said we had to withdraw 20,000 troops right away because the large number of troops made the Iraqis feel they were under occupation and increased their animus toward us.

ROFLMAO.

What can you do with genius like that but laugh out loud.

PaulS

The NYT report only pertains to indictments of those in the White House, and the info appears to come from Rove and Libby's lawyers or somone else with a WH connection.

Libby has been named, apparently, Rove not, and the big surprise being that Hannah and Wurmser weren't--though if the source is Libby and Rove's lawyers, I'm not sure that the NYT report can be implied to exclude Hannah and Wurmser.

There could still be any number of indictments of people outside the WH--CIA, State Dept, media figures. At least based on this latest info.

I'm eagerly awaiting Robert Novak's column on the subject, which he's undoubtedly been fine tuning for ages now.

clarice

And then there is that nitwit's international test.

As the Volcker Committee reports come out it seems the only way we'd ever get that is by greasing the proctors' hands with billions of dollars...and what did that get us in the first Gulf War..not much manpower, not much helo, but lots of weak kneed "allies" who kept us from finishing the job.

In the words of a great men "Nuts!"

clarice

Me, too, Paul..

windansea

TS9

yes you did coin that name...and I will be eternally grateful...cuz it pegs me perfectly...I'm not that adept analytically and haven't an iota of the encyclopedic knowledge, memory, and law background required to keep up with the twists and turns of this kerfluffle...I thank our host TM most of all...he has stayed ALL OVER this complicated mess with utmost clarity and honesty...openly admitting bad news from his POV and offering the clearest view of each and every wrinkle...no other site has offered as fair and balanced view and discussion as this one

the comments section of this site has been wide open and democratic...there are not many sites where total open discussion is allowed...no censorship and for the most part pretty cordial...pretty amazing and note there are no posted rules.

I think TM's fairness in reporting has a lot to do with this.

When I got here I was pathetically under informed...I'm still pathetic compared to many posters both left and right

guess I'll just keep sniffing my way to the truth

Jeff

finishing the job.

clarice - ROFLMAO.

Jimmy's Attack Rabbit

Madeline Albright expressed some of those deep Donk National Security thoughts in todays Boston Herarld. She says, "Democrats basically support the troops".

Rick Ballard

Jimmy - I wonder if Sandy Berglar helped her with her "thoughts"? He's still got some notes from National Security meetings stuffed here and there. Unless they didn't make it through the wash.

Jeff

Oh good one Jimmy's, because soundbyte quotes in articles in the newspaper is where I look for the development of new and important ideas too.

windansea

If "Team Bush and Team Cheney" were responsbile for leaks of grand jury testimony, then why would those leaks virtually ALWAYS cast the administration under a cloud of suspicion? It doesn't even make sense.

1. you don't know the source of all the leaks

2. MSM filter

3. headfake...we've been fed tidbits by Fitz and lawyers with various agendas but Fitz has the upper hand cuz he sees the whole picture...he no doubt realized very early that he was dealing with a power game at the highest level...savy players with competing agendas...so far I think he's played it quite well considering the power groups he this investigation involves...I'm hoping he is an unbiased patriot and reveals the truth.

Rick Ballard

There is something wrong here. No admin member is going to feed the NYT on this. This looks like a framing story by the Times - point at the White House but don't look at Langley if some CIA people get nailed.

Who involved would feed the NYT first and why would admin sources use the Times rather than the WaPo to put this out.

Something stinks.

Rick Ballard

WaPo rehash

What's the penalty for a wrong guess by a reporter?

clarice

Could be--here's a 2d story from the NYT--FBI unable to find source of Niger forgery--separate investigation continues--http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28niger.html

And IIRC, the 1st NYT story spoke of the investigation takin g off in an unexpected direction and some surprises...

clarice

RB--Mickey Kaus keeps asking that about Jehl--and Sulzberger for that matter and the LAT--apparently these are tenured positions.

Jeff

And IIRC, the 1st NYT story spoke of the investigation takin g off in an unexpected direction and some surprises...

I do wish that Fitzgerald's investigation were going in the direction of the Niger forgeries. But the second NYT article indicates the two investigations appear to be unconnected. But hey, here's the rare instance where we agree in our wishes. You, however, have a lot more power than me to make it happen. Use your influence with all those branches of government controlled by Republicans that have investigative powers to persuade them to look into the NIger forgeries. Better yet, just persuade Sen. Roberts to aggressively get the FBI to aggressively pursue its investigation into the matter. For some weird reason, the investigation that wimpy Sen. Rockefeller asked for several years ago has not been pursued aggressively. Maybe it's because all those crazy liberal Democrats at the FBI need to be prodded by the Republicans in charge of Congress these days, and those Republicans just haven't quite realized what a jackpot they're sitting on yet. Doesn't that make sense? Or maybe it's that the good-hearted Republicans don't want to make the Democrats feel bad by pressing too hard on an investigation, or mounting an investigation themselves, that would reveal the horrible Democrat-State-CIA-France-Wilson-liberalMSM conspiracy that produced the forged Niger documents in order to keep us out of war. I say feelings be damned, go for it. Please.

topsecretk9

Windersniff
You are top drawer!

Is what's going on...Not Fitzmas, no Rove's head on a platter, no deaths or injuries at Brewster Jennings, no outing, but Libby pulled a Martha? In which my lawyer brother tonight said - Hah, he'll beat that wrap--no false statement...It was what I believed at the time...and Rick is sensing some funny business from this leak?

Is this where it stands?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame