Powered by TypePad

« Smooth Sailing With The Captain | Main | Practical Problems With Perjury »

November 07, 2005

Comments

p.lukasiak

Well in this case, the author of the IPAA is dead (Senator Goldwater) so I think Ms. Toensing may be a perfectly acceptable alternate witness, no?

no. The point being that calling an "expert witness" to explain what a law means isn't going to happen. "Griffin" wasn't called to the stand to testify in front of the US Supreme Court.

He may have provided a "friend of the court" brief, or simply been cited by one of the attorney's in the case based on a conversation or other direct communication. But that doesn't make him a "witness".

Rick Ballard

Tom,

Lukasiak has been banned from other boards for precisely the type of cinduct which it is engaging in now. You might check with the Winds of Change folk for verification. It is incapable of discourse and always resorts to slurs as its rudimentary knowledge of a subject is disclosed.

It ain't gonna get better and "oh well, excretum will be excretum" will drive out commenters who actually are capable of relatively civil argument.

Rick Ballard

Tom,

Lukasiak has been banned from other boards for precisely the type of cinduct which it is engaging in now. You might check with the Winds of Change folk for verification. It is incapable of discourse and always resorts to slurs as its rudimentary knowledge of a subject is disclosed.

It ain't gonna get better and "oh well, excretum will be excretum" will drive out commenters who actually are capable of relatively civil argument.

BurkettHead

I’ll only post this once (I hope - though that doesn’t seem likely today).

Appalled Moderate said:

“If I remember right, the Paula Jones case finally was dismissed, but Clinton still had to take a plea bargain on perjury.”

The 1st petition was dismissed. Ms. Jones hired new attorneys, who filed an amended petition. Judge Wright granted President Clinton’s motion for summary judgment, as Ms. Jones wasn’t able to show any adverse employment consequences. Ms. Jones appealed to the 8th Circuit. After Judge Wright granted the motion for summary judgment, but before the 8th Circuit could hear the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Burlington v. Ellsworth, holding that an employee could recover without showing adverse employment consequences. The case was settled shortly thereafter. President Clinton was sanctioned by the court for his conduct during discovery.


p.lukiasik said:

“oh, and last time I checked, witnesses did not appear before the Supreme Court -- so I think that you are full of shit.”

Witnesses do not appear in person before the U.S. Supreme Court, however, affidavits are often filed with and quoted in the briefs that are filed with the Supreme Court.

clarice

In that case, the ex-Senator wrote an article which we listed in a footnote.

clarice

In that case, the ex-Senator wrote an article which we listed in a footnote.

clarice

In that case, the ex-Senator wrote an article which we listed in a footnote.

dogtownGuy

:let g:closetag_html_style=1
:source ~/.vim/scripts/closetag.vim

clarice

Man, this place is crazy today..

p.lukasiak

Witnesses do not appear in person before the U.S. Supreme Court, however, affidavits are often filed with and quoted in the briefs that are filed with the Supreme Court.

I know that. But AFAIK (and except possibly in cases where a death penalty defendant is seeking a last minute stay of execution -- and even then, SCOTUS would simply issue a temporary stay and bump the case down to a lower court to determine whether the new facts were persuasive enough to justify a new hearing) new evidence is not considered by the Supreme Court in making its determination -- new arguments can be presented, and affidavits submitted to support those arguments, but those arguments have to be based on the evidence presented at trial. Witnesses are called to determine the facts of the case, and are not called to determine how the law itself should be interpreted. (and I have the feeling you already know this...sorry.)

The point here is that Clarice is suggesting that Toensing could be called as an "expert witness" to explain the law to the judge --- and I effectively disputed that. Clarice "countered" by stating "I once had a case in the Supreme Ct of the US on the meaning of Landrum-Griffin and we used Griffin to say what it meant." In other words, she used a complete irrelevancy (that implied, within the context of the discussion, that Griffin was used as a witness) to argue her point about Toensing appearing as a witness to tell a judge what the law meant -- and I called her on it.


Appalled Moderate

Based on the comment by BurkettHead, my comment on Clinton's perjury plea is not an appropriate analogy.

So, challenge to the lawyers (which I hope will not be repeated). Would Clarice's strategy (essentially, a judicial determination that no underlying crime is possible) invalidate Libby's perjury/flase statements/obstruction charges charge, even if those crimes took place.

Does the martha stewart case (on appeal at the moment) have bearing on this issue.

Patrick R. Sullivan

The Clinton perjury was lacking governmental misconduct. Which appears to abound here.

If I were Libby I'd file a lawsuit against Wilson for defamation just to get him deposed.

clarice

I think under principles of Fraud on the Court the Prosecutor would be in trouble if Libby could prove the referral was based on false allegations.

topsecretk9

Libby may not have to

Vallely's sticking to it, with a bit of a "bring it on-ness" too

"...What’s more, Vallely tells Accuracy in Media that he is prepared if necessary to go to court to prove it....

...He may have to. Wilson’s attorney, Christopher Wolf, categorically rejects Vallely’s claim. He tells AIM, “It never happened I can assure you that. Vallely is making it up for whatever reason. It’s false. It’s libelous. It shouldn’t be said. And that should be the end of it.” Wolf, a partner at Proskauer Rose, is a specialist in the areas of the First Amendment, defamation and libel.

In an interview, Vallely said that Wilson told him this in 2002 when they were both in a Fox News Channel “green room,” where guests wait before going on network programs. As to why he waited until now to come forward with this explosive charge, he indicated that it was because of disappointment with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of the matter.

The growing controversy suggests that the Wilson affair, which has resulted in the indictment of former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, could take another important legal turn. Vallely, however, said he is not worried about being sued. “I have plenty of friends in Washington who will support my effort to have the truth brought out and get these people under oath,” he said...."

Appalled Moderate

clarice:

Lawyers can disagree on the law. I don't believe for a second Fitz isn't acting in good faith.

clarice

AM, I didn't say he is acting in bad faith. I said the Agency did. He relied on their misrepresentations.

JayDee

The leak about the prisons was actually a leak..I wonder if this time Tatel will argue that the leakee desrves protection? LL (He's a CLinton appointee).

Trent Lott just said on CNN that the information in the WaPo article was the same information discussed in a Republican Senators Only meeting, with many of the details copied exactly. To quote Mr. Lott via Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Ergo, another leaker who is ...wait for it, now, don't be shocked...a REPUBLICAN!

So, is Frist & Hastert's sudden interest in punishing leakers part of a Pub campaign to kneecap McCain? Or is Lott kneecapping the whiny catkiller who took his job?

OK, go back to your silly-millie speculation about meaningless nonsense published on WND...and only WND, such a respected propaganda outlet. I am puzzled by the tendency of this often intelligent site to loiter in tin foil land. Though it does seem to animate ole Clarice.

clarice

Well, JD, We'll see-- If someone had the information to give the Senators more than they know about it.

JayDee

We are having national security secrets discussed at Republicans Only meetings.

Our CIA is setting up shop in former Soviet gulags to hold secret prisoners and do god knows what with them.

Our Gooper leadership is more upset about the info being leaked than they are about the kremlinization of our government.

And you all are still kvetching that Joe Wilson is the one who really outed his wife! And using World News Daily as a source!

p.lukasiak

So, challenge to the lawyers (which I hope will not be repeated). Would Clarice's strategy (essentially, a judicial determination that no underlying crime is possible) invalidate Libby's perjury/flase statements/obstruction charges charge, even if those crimes took place.

Short answer, No. Perjury and obstruction charges are prosecutable even when no one is charged with an "underlying cause." (Clinton got nailed for this even though his "lies" were not considered relevant to the case -- consensual sexual behavior has no bearing on whether one is likely to commit sexual harrassment. Libby's lies were, in fact, relevant to the investigation. We don't know if what Libby is covering up is his own misdeeds, the misdeeds of others, or some vast right-wing conspiracy to convince the US to go to war for the benefit of Halliburton ;) And it doesn't matter --- what matters is that he lied under oath in a way that obstructed the investigation.)

Re: Fraud on the Court....

I found this definition on a website (http://www.gascape.org/index%20/Fraud_on_the_Court_Bloomington), and it looks pretty good....

Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been defiled, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court.

In other words, we're talking prosecutorial misconduct here. What the wingnuts are suggesting is not merely that the CIA asked for a criminal referral knowing that no crime had been committed, but that Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed before the question of perjury/obstruction was raised. Its that latter part that is the key, because even assuming that "no crime was possible", as long as Fitzgerald was acting in good faith at the time he began to suspect that Libby was lying, there was no fraud.

This "fraud on the court" nonsense gives you some idea of the incredible size and density of the tin-foil-hats that are being worn by these people. Not only it is necessary to believe that there was this vast conspiracy in the CIA to get a criminal investigation going when none was warranted, we have a separate and distinct conspiracy in the prosecutors office to cover up the CIA conspiracy.

In this case, given the facts (Plame's employment status was classified at the time she was outed, which was sufficient to continue investigating a potential crime under the Espionage Act), the "Fraud on the Court" theory is sheer nonsense. Only by piling on a mountain of irrelevancies, unsubstantiated assumptions, and conspiracy theories can anyone think that "Fraud on the Court" would be relevant -- and that once you strip away all the nonsense, its obvious that this is merely a means of avoiding/denying the overwhelming evidence that Libby lied and obstructed the investigation.

Lesley

JD, sometimes we're stuck with the party leadership we have, not the leadership we want.

Party politics should stop at our borders. I'm sick of the leaks and I don't care from which side of the aisle they ooze.

paul

"So, is Frist & Hastert's sudden interest in punishing leakers part of a Pub campaign to kneecap McCain?"

It's not a publicity campaign if you already know the source. The GOP wouldn't pursue it if the chance for a republican being the source was possible. That is why it can be said they know the 'leak'.

Bill Gertz knew about the 'black' prisons for years, but sat on the info. When he found out that a certain congress person gave the info to Dana Priest to disseminate it as part of an attack on the WH, he flipped. He told the Republicans who the source was for Priest. The short list might include:
Pelosi, Reid, Boxer.

They lost momentum with the failed indictments, wanted to keep the pressure on, and decided to get this 'classified' info out, to keep the far left fired up about abuse, secrecy, and to undercut the admin.

The editors at the Post also have an idea that they may have been used, and they are not happy.

The CIA involvement is incidental to this story, the congressional involvement is going to be explosive. Even better is the method of the dems-leaking information to select members of the press to augment their argument-where have I heard that before?

Timing is everything. The dems shot their wad a year early, or a year late. The GOP won't make the same mistake.

topsecretk9

----WND such a respected propaganda outlet....

HAH...what a joke!!!!! RAW STORY. MURRAY WASS, RADAR!!!

You kill me.

clarice

pl--fraud on the court needn't mean the prosecutor himself behaved fraudulently. f he, himself, was misled by his source, it would still apply. One would expect that he would rely on the Agency's word about the threshold questions of her status and the damage done. In essence, in this matter, he is acting ad the Ageny's counsel.

In a civil case, if the client persuaded his attorney that the documents he provided were authentic and they were, in fact, fraudulent, counsel has an obligation to notify the court when he discovers that. If he does so, the client alone will be penalized .If he doesn't, he may well suffer consequences of the fraud as well.

JayDee

paul, you're missing the facts. Lott just said on CNN that the details in the article mirrored information discussed in a Repub Only meeting. Got it?

Also, by Pub, I didn't mean Publicity.

What's the source for your formulaic rant of rumor, innuendo and insult? You've definitely got it backwards about which party is self imploding, dude.

JayDee

pssst, topsekret, don't trust them either. It really isn't that hard to wait for verifiable facts.

Sue

Jay Dee,

Do you have a source for your insults? Or do you make them up as you go? You became a SOB (scroll on by) a long time ago with me, unless your post is the last in the line.

JayDee

Well, then, Sue, it's odd how often you respond to me.

Appalled Moderate

jay dee:

I can't imagine this info was just made available to all the Republicans and no Senate Democrats. Seems like there would be something made known to everyone on the Intelligence Committee.

paul

JD-

Patience.

There was doe trepidation that it was Inhofe, but as soon as they established who it was...let the good times roll.

Rule #1: Never ask for an investigation unless you know where it is going.


cathyf
1) Toensing may know what she intended when she wrote the law, but AFAIK, although "legislative intent" is often considered when determining the meaning of a particular statute, "staff intent" is not considered relevant. (and lets not even discuss how easily her "interpretation" could be disregarded given her obviously partisan intentions.)
So are you claiming that Barry Goldwater wasn't a legislator?
When the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was being negotiated, Senate Select Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was adamant: If the CIA desired a law making it illegal to expose one of its deep cover employees, then the agency must do a much better job of protecting their cover. That is why a criterion for any prosecution under the act is that the government was taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the protected person's relationship to the intelligence agency. Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508

cathy :-)

topsecretk9

um...Jay Dee, what they reported was a straight SOURCED quote.

You do not have to like the quote but WND did nothing propaganda like at all...it is called reporting...much like you are doing with Trent Lott!

It is interesting to see that you interest in THIS leak SPIKED after watching Trent Lott. Sad that you didn't give a rats ass what the leak may have done and even sadder that you probably enjoyed that the leak undermined Bush.

So please, spare us your sudden righteous indignation. Your snarkiness may make you feel good...but it really says more about you the kind of person you are then anything else.

megan

"You've definitely got it backwards about which party is self imploding, dude."

Has the democratic party won an election since 96? If the gop keeps imploding this bad, there may not be any democrats left.

Sue

Jay Dee,

I know. You are like a bad train wreck, I can't look away. Especially when you are the last post in the line of posts and I can't SOB anymore. :) Lighten up. Don't be so abusive. Try to get your point across without being so nasty.

Gary Maxwell

It is interesting to see that you interest in THIS leak SPIKED after watching Trent Lott. Sad that you didn't give a rats ass what the leak may have done

What he said times 2

Gary Maxwell

t is interesting to see that your interest in THIS leak SPIKED after watching Trent Lott. Sad that you didn't give a rats ass what the leak may have done

What he said times 2

topsecretk9

The editors at the Post also have an idea that they may have been used, and they are not happy.

Geez, I'll say...especially considering there seem to be very little protections for reporters right now...bias is one thing, carrying the water at the sake of national security entirely different.

topsecretk9

Hey Gary did you plan that to happen?

cathyf
Lukasiak has been banned from other boards for precisely the type of cinduct which it is engaging in now. You might check with the Winds of Change folk for verification. It is incapable of discourse and always resorts to slurs as its rudimentary knowledge of a subject is disclosed
Gee, and I had this wild theory that he was really Joe Wilson... The narcissism seemed to be the sure clue, but then I guess narcissism isn't all that rare...

cathy :-)

Gary Maxwell

No but it is kinda funny in a very twisted way.

topsecretk9

Cathy-

I have that sneaky suspicion about some one else here!

MaidMarion

TP,

You might be on to something when you said "I am still fascinated as to why this story started with an op-ed rather than a news story. I still wonder if Joe tried to slip it in to the press as a news story and, because of inexperience in how to peak a reporter’s interest, blew his first attempt with somebody other than Kristof."

Unless someone can point to earlier articles, it does seem appear Kristof's 6 May 2003 article is Wilson's first foray into the Niger discussion (…and don't forget Wilson had only met Kristof at a Senate Democrat Committee conference a day or two earlier.) So, if Wilson was as outraged as he now says he was over Bush’s 16 words in the SOTU speech, why did it take until May 6th to get his story out?

Seymour Hersh, however, HAD written about the forged documents as early as 24 March 2003 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1). Look at what he writes back then:

extract

On December 19th, Washington, for the first time, publicly identified Niger as the alleged seller of the nuclear materials, in a State Department position paper that rhetorically asked, “Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?” (The charge was denied by both Iraq and Niger.) A former high-level intelligence official told me that the information on Niger was judged serious enough to include in the President’s Daily Brief, known as the P.D.B., one of the most sensitive intelligence documents in the American system. Its information is supposed to be carefully analyzed, or “scrubbed.”
-----------------
The chance for American intelligence to challenge the documents came as the Administration debated whether to pass them on to ElBaradei. The former high-level intelligence official told me that some senior C.I.A. officials were aware that the documents weren’t trustworthy. “It’s not a question as to whether they were marginal. They can’t be ‘sort of’ bad, or ‘sort of’ ambiguous. They knew it was a fraud—it was useless.
------------------
“Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,” the former high-level intelligence official added. “It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.” (The White House declined to comment.)

end extract

Most readers of Hersh’s March 2003 article interpreted the “former high-level intelligence official’s” comments as pointing a finger at someone in the Bush Administration. But Hersh subsequently tells us on 20 Oct 2003 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact ) that this former high-level intelligence official was actually accusing disgruntled, retired CIA officers of creating the forged documents.

So, flash back to 24 March 2003. Assume you were one of the disgruntled retired CIA officers and had read Hersh’s first article when it hit the web in late March. Don’t you think you’d be sweating bullets right about then?

Enter Joe Wilson to help save the forgers…

P.S. I couldn’t get the hyperlinks to work…

Syl

Neat idea, Marion!

TP

Maid Marion,

Actually, my assumption was that a regular news reporter at the NYT and/or his editors might have seen the story and spotted it as not newsworthy and dished it over to Kristof and that this original reporter may have been Miller's source of the Flame name and that the source she was protecting was another NYT news person and his editors. It would also mean that Libby might have been queried at the time and his antennae were up a lot earlier than May 6. Judy may have felt her WMD turf had been breached and was trying ot reclaim it.

The CIA stuff and Seymour Hersh? I am way out of my depth with Hersh.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'We are having national security secrets discussed at Republicans Only meetings.'

They are discussed at Democrat Only meetings too.

And the 'source' is a retired General, not WND.

Aren't you the guy who was claiming that Rush Limbaugh's audience were all toopid?

Gary Maxwell

Our Gooper leadership is more upset about the info being leaked than they are about the kremlinization of our government. quoteth JDuffy aka JayDee


Can somebody find this paragon of knowledge bloviating in a prior post here about how important it was that national security was compromised. I dont have the time right now, but I am certain it is there for the data miners to uncover.

Dwilkers

Ya Patrick.

I too am shocked SHOCKED that they talk about secret stuff at Republican only meetings. Why now that I think about it, every time they talk about anything secret at the White House that's probably Republicans only TOO! AIYEEEE!

I think JD maybe needs his mom to give him a cookie and a glass of warm milk.

clarice

I have always found it telling that in his purblic appearances from Oct 22 to May of 2003 Wilson never raised the Mission story, and basically stuck to the Scowcroft line.

I still shifted for largely political reasons. He was going nowhere with thie Administration, saw that Clarke and Beers left to join Kerry, and moved over--but needed to make himself attractive to them-

Of course, that's just my hunch..

AlanDownunder

ex-Gen Vallely has form

clarice

Digby, is as stupid as he is wacky..

CaseyL

How Deep is That Vallely?

Deep. Pretty deep. Piled kinda high, too:

From the Regnery book Vallely co-authored, called "Endgame: The Blueprint For Victory in The War On Terror":

"As the authors would have it, North Korea must dismantle its nuclear program or face U.S. invasion. Syria, unless it stops supporting terrorism and coughs up the Iraqi WMDs the authors say it’s hiding, should also be invaded. Saudi Arabia should be nudged toward a diversified economy and political reform, but if Islamic radicals take over, it too must be invaded. Iran, too big to invade, should be slapped with an embargo and naval blockade."

Oh: that General Vallely!

But wait! There's more!:

"Colmes questioned the wisdom of a Judeo/Christian holy war against Muslims. "That's what's going on," Vallely said. "If you don't understand that, then you don't get it."

Vallely also has interesting taste in collaborators:

"But that's not General Vallely's claim to fame. He is known for a paper he wrote with a military intelligence officer named Michael Aquino in the late 1980's called From PSYOP to Mindwar: The Psychology of Victory. Aquino is also the founder of a Satanic cult called "The Temple of Set" which has had many run-ins with the law regarding satanic pedophile rings on military bases. I kid you not. You can find a copy of this paper on the Temple web-site. He founded the cult in the mid-1970's more than a decade before he wrote this paper with our friend Vallely. I'm not big on guilt by association -- but really."

Finally, if Vallely is telling the truth that Joe Wilson disclosed Valerie Plame's identity while idly chatting in a Fox News Green Room, then shouldn't someone alert Fitzgerald, so he can get Vallely to say so in court, under oath, in order to keep poor li'l ol' Scooter Libby from being wrongly convicted?

Anybody here got Fitz's phone number? Better call him, y'all.

Better call him right now!!

Syl

Well, this is OT for this thread, but it's so crazy today that we're lucky to post at all. Anyway...

It seems to me that the Dems are really screwing up bigtime now with all this Iraq Bad! stuff and Investigation 237 or whatever number they're up to these days.

They are disavowing their connection to a war it's becoming more and more obvious we are winning.

I question their timing. I mean how self destructive can you get?

Syl

Casey

Vallely got to you, huh? Go ahead, flail your arms around, stamp your little feet, and scream that Johnny got the bigger portion of ice cream! Oh, it feels soooooo good.


clarice

They must know how bad this is--on every blog site, they are in full field Bush Derangement Syndrome mod..

clarice

ahem--MODE.

topsecretk9

Sorry, but am I supposed to be vexed by digby's Vallely quotes?

I don't get it.

topsecretk9

ahem
Wilson also has interesting taste in collaborators: LCJ


MaidMarion

TP,

It seems to me there was a "shopping" of Wilson's story between the WashPost and NYT, but that was in the June 2003 timeframe, AFTER Kristof's article. What one MUST pay attention to is that with all these articles (from May 2003 onwards) Wilson cleverly allowed the journalists to erroneously report his words. But he would later go on record (usually in TV interviews) to "correct" what those reporters reported.

I'd see him on CSpan during this crucial timeframe...he'd be at some conference or other which CSpan was recording. And I'd watch how he'd cleverly "meld" his trip to Niger as having been a mission to confirm the authenticity of the Niger documents. I was a total mad woman back in 2003 whenever I saw Joe Wilson on TV. I was watching him like white on rice because I was following the Niger document story and could see how he was bending the chronology of events.

Seymour Hersh was on the Niger documents in late March already, when the issue of their "forgery" was in the headlines.

Go to the links I posted previously and read both of his articles ...slowly.

Rick Ballard

"they are in full field Bush Derangement Syndrome mode"

It gives real meaning to "Stuck on Stupid".

topsecretk9

Maid M-

What one MUST pay attention to is that with all these articles (from May 2003 onwards) Wilson cleverly allowed the journalists to erroneously report his words.

Would you think it to be twofold for Joe? Or would think it to be group 1's idea to join group 2?

"--"...Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who said a Bush aide disclosed that his wife is a CIA operative in retaliation for his criticism of the Iraq war, has worked since May (03) as an unpaid adviser to Senator John F. Kerry, offering foreign policy advice and speechwriting tips to the Democratic presidential candidate from Massachusetts....

...Kerry's advisers acknowledged yesterday that Wilson, who has also donated $2,000 to Kerry this year, told them about his allegations against the White House involving his wife before going public with them this summer. But Rand Beers, Kerry's top adviser on foreign affairs, said the campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges.--"

macranger

Lott's been hacked ever since he got hacked.

First, in Senate briefings there are all kinds of people - aides, etc, yet even so, there's no way that report Priest did was sourced from a meeting just two days before it broke.

Stories such as these take weeks if not months to break as sources and information is checked. Hell editorial processes take more than a week.

Bet Priest's source(s) is a "retired" op who basically outed himself. A name familiar to most who have followed this story.

By the way, the referral to DOJ has been made already per B. York at NRO.

MaidMarion

Clarice,

Your comment: "He was going nowhere with thie Administration, saw that Clarke and Beers left to join Kerry, and moved over--but needed to make himself attractive to them-"

I agree. My previous comment was too broad, the way I phrased it.

Wilson wasn't directly coming to the rescue of "the forgers" per se. I don't think he necessarily even knew them or what they did. What he was doing was helping the Democrats make hay with the "forged documents" headlines of the moment, which at the same time helped to protect the forgers.

The key point is this: Wilson attended some Senate Democrat Committee conference a day or two before his interview with Kristof, which resulted in Kristof's May 6, 2003 article.

His attendance at that meeting is evidence for the point you are making.

Sue

Mac,

Wahoo!

Sue

Wilson made a mistake by making a big deal out of Vallely. Fox News is reporting on the controversy it has created. :) They had been silent until Mr. Joe kicked sand in someone's eyes. :)

macranger

Sue,

I have long said that Joe Wilson is the Ralph Kramdem of politics...

"I've got a BIGGG MOUTH!"

Sue

Mac,

LOL. And a big ego to go with the big mouth.

MaidMarion

Topsecretk9,

Your post: "Would you think it to be twofold for Joe? Or would think it to be group 1's idea to join group 2?"

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are asking here.

Re.: "But Rand Beers, Kerry's top adviser on foreign affairs, said the campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges.--"

Certainly. Beers claims the Kerry campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges. And I'm willing to bet big bucks Beers can legally defend that statement.

The question which needs to be answered is whether or not the Democrat Party or the Senate Democrat Committee was coordinating Wilson's charges.

Sue

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue deals with classified information, said the referral was made shortly after the Nov. 2 story. The leak investigation into the disclosure of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity came about through the same referral procedure. The Justice Department will decide whether to initiate a criminal investigation.

...

Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the House and Senate committees with normal jurisdiction should conduct any hearings, not a bicameral committee as suggested in the letter of the two Republican leaders.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said any such joint investigation should also investigate possible manipulation of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/08/D8DOK9AG2.html>CIA Probe

Rick Ballard

Sue,

That can't be right. We've already been assured by commenters here using their impeccable reasoning that the leak came from a Republican. Why in the world would Reid and Pelosi not want a bicameral committee focused spefically on an act of Republican perfidy? And why would they want to append other issues to the investigation if it were to be held by regular House and Senate committees? That would tend to draw attention away from this dastardly act which borders on treason. In fact, this one could really draw the Espionage Act into play.

clarice

Yeah, Beers just costarred with Joe in the MoveOn filem "Uncovered"...Based on Joe's charges..And I am sure--cause that would have violated campaign finance law--that the 527 Move On didn't coordinate with the campign. At the last minute, they just made the videos available around the nation to Kerry home parties. LOL

clarice

Joe's June 14 speech was sponsored by EPIC, a group formed in the some years ago to get the sanctions on Iraq removed. (I always suspected there was Baathist or OFF money behind that) and his speech by a conglomeration of lefty "useful idiots" some of whom were alse funded by the same source.
And he was --maybe still is--on one of those"think tanks"funded by the Saudis to hire retired DoS officials and diplomats.

topsecretk9

OT but, WTF is wrong with Joel Klein? I urge everyone read Kaus's latest post...in it he points out what an incredible water carring putz Klien is. Klein you may recall recently wrote a pre-indictment bellyache about a non-existent smear campaign Repubs were waging against Fitz.

Also this is the guy that made a name for himself hounding Kenn Starr. But the larger point this brought to my mind (read the post) is this weird trend of hyper-sensitivity. For the longest time I have thought the Dems preemptive hysterics in which they ignore facts and repeat spin (or lies) was only a strategic tactic because they are devoid of any substantive policy ideas. But now I think it is a combo.

When Wilson was on the verge of being exposed as full of BS...he spun legitimate challenges to his assertions into a smear campaign and engineered a scandal that sympathetic leftest in the media probably gleeful assisted in and are sitting on to this day.

But when reading Kaus's post, it made me realize that the Dems have become a bunch of immature pussies (I am not name-calling, I use those words as literal descriptions). Whenever challenged, even in the most ginger and fair minded way they reflectively freak out and yammer "right-wing smear campaign, talking points, smear campaign, right-wing,...". Meanwhile they are calling admin a-holes, lying bastards and evil Hitler Neo-Cons.

Here is the thing. If Joe Wilson could have HONESTLY said his wife had no part in his Niger trip, that Cheney really did "behest" or dispatched him, did but didn't, but did but didn't , tell reporters about names and dates on Niger documents then why didn't he challenge someone in the administration to prove otherwise? Oh, thats right...a smear campaign insulated him. Convenient too.

Sue

Rick,

I don't know. But I didn't get from Reid and Pelosi that dragon breath feeling I got from the dreaded outing of a CIA operative. In fact, they seem kind of relunctant to jump on this bandwagon. :)

clarice

I think that's interesting, too, and have been trying to figure it out ever since a couple of years ago I was the dinner guest of charming , lovely people in a beautiful house on a lake in Maine. After dessert, the host asked me what I thought of Bush. I said I loved the man, and he started screaming how narrow minded I was!!! For honestly answering his question, Period.
Now he was older and part of that old Ivy League American-German Jew very urbane crowd and always polite. I think his outburst disturbed him more than it did me. And he quickly calmed down, apologized and tried to behave.
I think that these people are so used to being looked up to and having their words and views set the standard, they simply cannot take their fall from that special place of grace.. Honestly. I think that's it.

CaseyL


Answer a simple little question:

Why hasn't Fitzgerald dropped his charges against Libby?

MaidMarion

Clarice,

Precisely...!

Which brings us now back to a more fundamental question which relates to the CIA's methods of operation pre-9/11:

Just how extensively had the Saudis, Jordanians, Iraqis, etc. successfully penetrated the CIA and State Dept pre-9/11?

Sue

Clarice,

They see Bush as stupid. Ergo, anyone who supports Bush is stupid. This from the crowd that supports all views. They just forget to tell you that only means if you support their view.

clarice

I don't know. But I expect he's about to meet his Waterloo if he doesn't.

clarice

Sue, I agree--MM, For decades the retired diplo corps has been taken care of by the Saudis ..Remember all those guys always signing statements for Kerry during the Campaing? They all were on the Saudi tit one way or another. That's a large part of their Scowcroft world view.

Many also are like Prince Charles(not so smart members of the equestrian set) who find an affinity with reich, westernized Saudis.

clarice

rich--not reich..LOL

Casey--can you cut the caps?

boris

Behold Unbold !!!

clarice

Yes--Thanks, Boris.

clarice

Able Danger's Hot again:
------------------------------------
Another shoe may drop in the Able Danger story tomorrow, when Rep. Curt Weldon plans on holding a press conference to announce new developments in the case. Weldon's office released a statement today announcing the media event tomorrow at 12:30 PM ET, which can also be found on his website, I believe. Weldon's invitation promises the following:

The latest findings include: information Able Danger provided to defense officials about terrorist activity in the Port of Aden prior to the terrorist attack on the USS Cole back in October http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005752.php

topsecretk9

Sue, Rick

scroll up and re-read the lenghty post by Paul and see what you think

CaseyL

Casey--can you cut the caps?

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't post in all caps, nor do I use caps inappropriately.

Still waiting to hear someone tell me why Fitzgerald hasn't dropped the charges against Libby, since y'all have it all figured out that Libby didn't do anything wrong or illegal. I'm sure Fitzgerald would be happy to save the taxpayers some money, not to mention get back to his other full-time job in Chicago.

I just don't understand why none of the legal geniuses here have shared their insights with Fitzgerald's office.

But then, I still don't know why none of you experts in covert ops ever contacted the CIA to reassure them Plame wasn't covert.

MaidMarion

"Courage!" to Rep Weldon and Tony Shaffer. You are the custodians of the truth...do not despair.

TP

Casey,

I'm not a lawyer, but let me take a stab at how it usually works: First the indictment, then the pre-trial motions and discovery, then the trial, then the verdict.

Gary Maxwell

Good Gosh almost moonbat troll free tonight. Clarice is it your garlic necklace? JK or has the fun gone out this little game our friends have been playing and what a coincidence when a few Republicans finally grow a spine and start fighting back, too late and not nearly as hard as they ought to, but welcome never the less.

Gary Maxwell

He told the Republicans who the source was for Priest. The short list might include:
Pelosi, Reid, Boxer.

Well well well if Paul is correct we might be hunting some big game here. Minority Leader of the House or Minority Leader of the Senate. Frankly I would be disapointed only if it turns out to the mental midget from California.

Rick Ballard

Sue,

I agree with Paul's conclusion and I hope that Clarice's suggested strategy is followed by Libby's defence team. Fitz's quote from his presser reveals an investigatory ineptness worthy of Inspector Clouseau.

The Demwits have a very real and very large problem on their hands. They are going to be bleeding over this for the next year. As Paul mentioned, keeping your powder dry until the time is right is a tactically sound decision. There ain't no way out for the Dems - the Demsm will bury the Vallely story for a little bit but talk radio will get it out fairly well.

It's amazing to me that circulation rates have only dropped another 2.6%. Who's stupid enough to believe a word printed by the Dem propaganda organs?

Rick Ballard

That should have been addressed to TS9. I would like to hear what Sue thinks.

p.lukasiak

Still waiting to hear someone tell me why Fitzgerald hasn't dropped the charges against Libby, since y'all have it all figured out that Libby didn't do anything wrong or illegal.

casey, the wingnuts have realized that Libby did do something wrong AND illegal, and are not in full-blown "CIA conspiracy" mode. They seem to think that by asserting that Valerie Plame was not covert (and, lest we forget, they have no evidence to support that claim) and by asserting that the CIA knew she was not covert when it asked for a criminal referral under IIPA, that there has been a "fraud of the court".

Now, in order to accomplish this, they make a slew of leaps of logic that would impress the most jaundiced Kennedy assasination conspiracy nut .....the latest being that Fitzgerald was actually acting as the CIA's lawyer.

And these flights of fancy are coming from someone who presents herself as a lawyer on this blog --- and who asserts that because a legislator was cited in a footnote to an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States, that a wingnut named Toensing (who was a staff member involved in the writing of the IIPA) would be allowed to appear in court as a witness to explain to the judge what the law actually meant.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but trust me, witnesses do not appear in court to explain the law to judges.

Now, if these folks had a clue, they would be discussing the possibility of saving Libby's butt by having testimony excluded on national security grounds, etc. But they don't.

JM Hanes

TM -

Haven't read through comments to see if anybody's mentioned this article about another whole crowd of folks I'd like to see ushered into somebody's witness stand: The CIA Disinformation Compaign (at The Spectator via Real Clear Politics). Among a number of interesting questions raised is the one about whether or not the CIA referral to Justice might, itself, actually constitute a crime, alongside speculation about who actually signed off on the Wilson trip and why -- and more.

CaseyL

"Now, if these folks had a clue, they would be discussing the possibility of saving Libby's butt by having testimony excluded on national security grounds, etc. But they don't."

That's going to be a bit difficult to do in re the perjury/obstruction charges, which don't directly (note that I said 'directly') address the underlying charge of outing a NOC. I'm not sure how testimony regarding when Libby lied, and who he lied to, involves national security issues.

Now, if testimony brings out those underlying charges, then maybe Libby's lawyers will start pointing to national security issues. But then they run into a cunundrum: If they try to claim that Libby didn't violate any espionage laws by outing Plame because she wasn't an NOC, then how can they simultaneously claim that testimony to the contrary endangers national security?

topsecretk9

Sue and Rick

Well that was fast. Dems don't seem to be as scandalized by grave national security Leaks as they once were, however it does give us an indication as to the origin of the leak...Thanks Paul!

"Democrats said instead of just investigating possible leaks related to that story (Prison), Republicans should allow a broad investigation on detainee abuses and whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence before the Iraq war."

JM Hanes

Similarly, via RCP, more unanswered questions at the Agency from Scott Johnson writing at the Weekly Standard: Three Years of the Condor. Has anybody ever done a comparitive analysis of DCI Tenet's statements in the lead up to the war? I remember him being all over the map from one Committee hearing to the next. Terrorism was a problem/not a problem etc. He was nearly as quotable as Jefferson -- and likewise, on either side of any issue you happened to be touting.

p.lukasiak

That's going to be a bit difficult to do in re the perjury/obstruction charges, which don't directly (note that I said 'directly') address the underlying charge of outing a NOC. I'm not sure how testimony regarding when Libby lied, and who he lied to, involves national security issues.

we are talking about evidence regarding conversations whose subject is classified. For instance, the report of Joe Wilson's debriefers is still classified. The two memos that were created explaining the trip upon the request of Libby and Powell remain classified.

But more importantly, Libby can try and claim that conversations that involved highly classified information were exculpatory, and that the refusal of the government to rescind the classification of the information discussed on national security grounds means that he is unable to present an adequate defense.

If I were Libby's lawyers, I'd also be trying to launch a fishing expedition of all of the notes of all the journalists involved in the case, and try to compel them to testify about virtually everything. This might actually prevent people like Russert, Cooper and Miller from testifying at trial -- its highly doubtful that any of them would submit themselves to unlimited questioning, and unlimited access to their notes. (and, based on what Libby's lawyers said after his arraignment, they are pursuing this strategy.)

Even if Libby loses at trial, the issues raised by his legal team regarding access to evidence practically guarantees that his appeal would be granted cert through both the Federal Appeals Court and SCOTUS, and Libby would remain a free man while those appeals were being litigated.

Libby will have spent no time in Jail until January 2009...at which point Shrub can pardon him.

Oh, and Libby has set up a "legal defense fund". I'm sure that all of the "Plame wasn't covert" devotees will be opening up their checkbooks to prevent the "grave injustice" being inflicted upon Libby...

Clarice? Syl? Bennett? Would you like the link so you can send Libby your cash?

topsecretk9

Luk---
was wondering what was taking him so long. my money's there. Sure, I"d pay to have Russert, Mitchell, Miller, Cooper and Doe's on the stand.

topsecretk9

Sue and Rick----
Something I sort of semi noticed but hadn't put my finger on, glaringly missing was the predictable instantaneous hissy fit for not having been privy or in the loop (on the actual intel)

Rick Ballard

TS9,

As I mentioned over at my place, the Dems are going to start calling their wagon a sled very shortly. Just about all the wheels are off now and they're about to get an investigation into a serious intelligence breach rather than the Inspector Clouseau "Who outed Mrs. Joe 'Hi, did you know my wife worked for the CIA?' Wilson" farce. I do hope they enjoy it.

The Niger docs investigation is finished, Joe outed Val and the leaker to Dana Priest may actually be liable to do hard time for feeding her a Dem/al-Queada helping story. Plus, the valiant Dana is headed for the 'Judy Miller' room down at the government inn.

And it's just turning Wednesday morning.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame