Powered by TypePad

« Newsweek Goes To Duke (Again) | Main | Just One LA Minute »

June 19, 2006

Comments

topsecretk9

Lesley -- thanks!

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald

What happened to Randall Samborn?

topsecretk9

---ps. in a nod to Jeff, I will admit that TNH doesn't believe Leopold, but does believe that Rove Rolled! Also, seem to believe Leopold made up the story but Wilson heard it from credible sources. Go figure. ---

Go figure no kidding! Of course EW, is the one that gets the vapors whenever Armitage may be a "tagret" comes up. S

topsecretk9

so...

topsecretk9

Well nuts...I did miss it...but Windandsea excerpts from Leopold

"...Everything I wrote in my book, News Junkie, is now being used against me in the worst way. .."

No Duh (sounds like that was the point, dontcha think?)...Embrace him people...he just played all his loyal progressives including unwitting but unwavering TalkLeft...he is nothing more than a creative capitalist!! i.e. their worst nightmare.

topsecretk9

there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used?

I.E. do we tell the world Joe Wilson lied to us too and thereby be the ones that actually do put the nails in the Wilson "honesty" coffin?

Shit no, can you imagine the grief we'd take?

topsecretk9

the depths of sickness

Curiouser and Curiouser....
It seems like Ash et al have gotten rid of the middle man
and are in direct contact with the confidential sources....
And yes one would think that the Rove/Cheney team must
have been able to deduce who the sources are by now
if there's a nugget of truth at the center of the story...
I'll bet they're mad as hornets....but maybe Rove and
Cheney are at war with each other over this?

by darkduck on Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 10:30:45 PM EDT

Um Darkduck...if TruthNot had "gotten" rid of the middleman...wouldn'tcha think the story would be MORE confirmable NOT LESS?

And um...dontcha think ...this Mark Flet like **shadowy** source would WANT to go to a big "oracle" so as to help you OUT?

How much damage is Joe Wilson allowed to commit? I mean these people "lay at the alter" (Wilon and Larry's favorite "Saving Private Ryan" line ----they can't even come up with their own shit!!) of his BS...EW goes to mat for his "baseless" claim Rove rolled and Cheny is in the "crosshairs"

Jaysus, when does obe of these lefty bloggers sans Daily Howler, the Plank or sat Kaus waKe the crap up and realize they are being played by their hero?

BurbankErnie

From the Truthout Fairytale:

"The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office. "


I would sure like to know how the contents of a private phone call between Fitz and Luskin gets leaked ONLY TO ASH.
This is just too lame to make up, and yet in the comments, they have folks applauding and showering the site with donations.
Quite disturbing.

crosspatch

Actually, some friends of mine and I hacked the site, locked out all the regular people and have been posting this stuff for fun. The donations links actually go to a bank account we have set up for beer money and burning man tickets.

topsecretk9

---I would sure like to know how the contents of a private phone call between Fitz and Luskin gets leaked ONLY TO ASH.---

Yes and shush...these things make Jeff and EW uncomfortable and then they reprocess these legitimate questions into "gop talking points" and a bunch of "therefore and so by which by the inconvertible way of therefore by way of if and for but however but it is so via there and so by there if for then however by way of thereby and if and what and who and so by therewas a way for there to be therefore by way of?...IDGA
And um.....you are dumb and/or "schmucky" if you point it out ---IDGAF though!

Sara (The Squiggler)

I would sure like to know how the contents of a private phone call between Fitz and Luskin gets leaked ONLY TO ASH.
This is just too lame to make up, and yet in the comments, they have folks applauding and showering the site with donations.
Quite disturbing.

I am out of work with no income, flat broke and recovering from a broken vertebrae ... if I post about a super secret indictment of, oh let's say, Dick Cheney, will you all back me up so that I can get some of those showers of donations? My mortgage company would be most grateful and so would the electric company.

Sara (The Squiggler)


Cecil Turner

To determine their funding one would have to troll the various grants made by Tides, Soros, et al.

Not necessary. Just ask, "cui bono?" TruthNot is obviously funded, and operated by . . . wait for it . . . Karl Rove! (Yep, that's why they call him the "Master" . . . the same goes for Murtha's Okinawa ramblings, of course.)

Patton

Only in government does someone need a spokesperson to say NO COMMENT.

How much are we paying these spokespeople to say NO COMMENT??

Why don't they just say...we will nave no comments ever and put this person in another job.

Patton

So Truthouts position is Rove has been and is still under indictment and they were 'used' to pressure Rove into rolling on Cheney.

Can anyone still not see just how deranged these people have become..it is astounding.

If you have followed the Libby case at all, Fitz has NOTHING on any conspiracy or any intent to out a undercover agent..ZIP, ZILCH.

He has a disagreement between Libby and a few journalists about what was said in their conversations..that's it.

Other Tom

Let's face it--TruthOut is in a quagmire.

windansea

a smart DUmmy with Pacer skills debunks TruthNot's latest gibberish

They are lying to you. I swear, I feel like this is some alternate reality & we're back to 4 weeks ago. "Maybe it's sealed" "sounds plausible", "wait & see", etc. It reminds me a whole lot of Bush voters. Oh sure, they'll get mad at Hurricane Katrina or Harriet Miers, but two weeks later they've reverted back to the same talking points like they've forgotten that ever happened. It's just incredible to me. I'm sorry. We DID prove it - Tom22 & others showed that the "06 cr 128" case WASN'T a Rove indictment, but probably a filing from the Libby case. It was filed May 17th - far after the date the Rove indictment supposedly took place. It has the same number as a Time motion to quash that was filed shortly beforehand. It most likely refers to the evidence from the in-camera hearing on that motion.

If you'll notice something, TO never actually SAID that the "Sealed v. Sealed" filing was the Rove indictment then; they just published the story & allowed readers to draw that conclusion. Likewise, now they're not, actually, SAYING that this case number is the Rove indictment now; they're just "pointing to it". They'll put two unrelated sentences together - "We think Rove was indicted" & "there's a case called 06-CR-128" & let readers conclude that it's the Rove indictment. Ugh, ugh, ugh. But, technically they're not lying - they'll say it's the readers' fault if they draw that conclusion. They are treating their readers w/utter contempt, they are lying to people, they are acting unethically & they don't care. I have to think that TO was involved in something so unethical that they'd rather cling to this obvious falsehood rather than reveal the truth. What are they so afraid of? I'm sort of stunned by the arrogance & cynicism of this newest "update". Truth out? Yeah, right.

posted by Marie26

TheDUmp

Lurker

Verner, you made a reference to Sandlers. Is one of them Adam Sandler?

Patton, not only is it TO's position, it seems to be EW's position as per "Dick is Sweating" post.

I also don't think these people are the ONLY ones deranged. Think of all of the 9/11 conspiracies, Moon trip conspiracies, Holocaust conspiracies.

noah

Clarice...is there some problem with the AT site? Won't load for me.

Lurker

Ex-Marine Murtha is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Check the link

Lurker

Check Hot Air for some funny photos. Come on Pino-Murtha!

windansea

GoofOut sez:

"After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less."

hey look....we're pointing to something but we're too clueless to figure out what we're pointing at was filed 4-5 days after we said the indictment was handed down...

Lurker

Noah, AT came up after a while. It seems to be slow. PErhaps it can't handle the load?

noah

Seriously, have you ever heard of a conspiracist seeing the light..."aha! what I have been saying is wrong"?

When your worldview is constructed of unverifiable/unfalsifiable "facts" what would cause you to abandon them given that you adopted them in the first place?

noah

Thanks Lurker.

Lurker

YW

Just read at Wizbang that the missing soldiers are found dead. Let's pray for them and their families and appreciate the efforts of our 8000 troops in finding them.

I would not be surprised that that area will be attacked.

Lurker

UHM...

Pelosi wants an impeached judge chairing the Intelligence Committee if they win the House.

Where are their morals?

Lurker

Can you predict what the moonbats, Murtha, Kerry, Levin, and Reed would say after hearing of the missing soldiers' death?

windansea

OK, I used PACER to download a complete docket of all cases filed in the DC District Court between May 10th and June 12th. The case cites have a formula - the first number is the year, the "CR" is the type of case (Criminal), and the last number is sequential & assigned to each case based on when it was filed. So, the first criminal case filed in 2006 would be 1:06-CR-0001, the second one would be 1:06-CR-0002 etc. Even though this doesn't tell us exactly when it was filed, it does tell us what order it was filed in. So, if 06-CR-400 was filed on August 12th, that tells us 06-CR-401 couldn't have been filed until after that date.

The criminal docket doesn't list a 06-CR-128; it's completely missing from the docket. This is typical for sealed cases in the DC courts. However, we can tell when it was filed based on the dates of the surrounding cases. Here's the complete list of criminal cases filed in the DC district court from May 10 - May 23, 2006.

1:06-cr-00123-HHK
USA v. MANSOER Filed: 05/10/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00125-RBW
USA v. DORIUS et al Filed: 05/12/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00126-JDB
USA v. ABDOULAYE Filed: 05/12/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00127-RWR
USA v. CURRY Filed: 05/16/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00129-RMC
USA v. WASHINGTON Filed: 05/17/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00131-PLF
USA v. HILLIARD Filed: 05/18/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00132-EGS
USA v. MANOR Filed: 05/18/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00136-HHK
USA v. GARCIA Filed: 05/23/2006 Office: Washington, DC

No 06-CR-128 listed at all. But the case before it, CR-127, was filed on May 16, 2006. And the case after it, CR-129, was filed on May 17, 2006. Therefore, we know that 06-CR-128 was filed either May 16 or May 17th. According to Leopold's original story, Rove was indicted (secretly) on May 12th. In his new "Sealed vs. Sealed" story, he says "As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal.. The case number is "06 cr 128." But based on the dates in the docket, that case cite CANNOT be the Rove indictment. This case was filed on Tuesday, May 16 or Wed., May 17th - NOT May 12th (when Fitz supposedly met w/the grand jury), and NOT during the week of May 7 - May 13th.

Either the case cite he used is wrong, or the date of the supposed indictment is wrong - both cannot be correct. And where is the indictment? There's no missing numbers at all from May 12 - May 16th, when the indictment was supposedly made, no "sealed vs. sealed," and the two cases listed from that time period are not Fitzgerald's. Even secret cases will be assigned a number, even if it doesn't appear on the docket. The first "gap" in numbers comes on May 16th, and then 4 other cases are missing from the docket from May 18-23. My point is that you could pick ANY of these unlisted numbers & randomly decide it's a Rove indictment - but NONE of them fit the supposed date of the indictment. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that 06-CR-128 is not the Rove indictment, and no indictment was issued against Rove on May 12th.

posted by Marie26 at the DUmp

CopOut sez:

Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it.

so Fitz and the Rovester climbed into their time machine, dialed up May 16 or 17, found sealed vs sealed 06 cr 128 and then returned to May 12 so Fitz could read parts of it to Karl....

Jane

This is my favorite DU diatribe so far:

"I have a problem when anybody lies to me. But I don't consider that to be the case here. Truthout is a great progressive outlet that has served our side justly on many many occasions. If Marc, Will, Jason and the entire T.O. staff are being this upfront and direct and standing behind their reporting I have no reason to call them liars. They are one of our own, and though that isn't enough for a free pass, they have done enough in the past time and time again to earn my trust and respect."

Jane

BTW I have the same problem at AT - and it started yesterday.

Cecil Turner

Oh man, that comment thread just keeps getting better and better. And they even have variety, from certifiable paranoids:

Please be careful
You are messing with the most powerful people in the world. Double and triple up on your documentation. Put it in multiple safe deposit boxes. I have no doubt you are being watched and listened to. Be careful.
To pseudo-normal analytical types, whose only obvious dysfunction is buying a patently absurd story from an unreliable source (to the point of denying any other possibility exists):
While so many journalists and ordinary people are gloriously unburdened by a sense of right and wrong, and sing their irrationality through a megaphone, it's refreshing and delightful to see Truthout critically analyze itself and make the correct decision. I'm not surprised. Faced with this difficult, unprecedented problem, you've shown extraordinarily good judgment.
Hmmm, I'm thinkin' we should be goin' long on lead-lined safe deposit boxes . . .

topsecretk9

---My point is that you could pick ANY of these unlisted numbers & randomly decide it's a Rove indictment - but NONE of them fit the supposed date of the indictment. ---


Pretty much...I think Jason went hunting for some sort of out of this pickle he was in and hell...judging form the comments at TO...those people will believe anything.

Lurker

More on the Libby conspiracies....

Since EW / FT/ EH referred to Newsday's "Pardon" article, several bloggers plus Howard Kurtz were really impressed (NOT!!) with the Newsday article. I agree with Oh Bull!!

Out on a Limb with Libby

Blue Crab Boulevard links to other bloggers.

Lurker

Check AJStrata's news about that damn Murtha and Kerry:

Murtha, Kerry See Defections In Iraq Plan

Japan is pulling out by the end of this month, probably in light of the recent democrat actions:

"It is not clear whether the Japanese soldiers were redeployed to protect Okinawa from Murtha’s raiders as well as a pre-emptive act to get out of Iraq before they were left high and dry by the retreating American forces."

AJStrata implied rumors in other news about:

"In other news, Kerry was rumored to be in negotiations with the UN and Annan for the UN peace keeping forces to take over control of Iraqi security. Many Iraqi women were fearful of an army full of blue-helmeted Son’s-Of-Hussein roaming the streets looking for a ‘little fun’. Odds were, with Kerry handling the negotiations, the UN Security council would vote for and against the plan. Experts are not sure exactly what that means, but the career diplomat core felt it would be a sign of progress."

AJStrata's sarcastic about Kerry's flip-floppings as Kerry is submitting his resolution with the changed deadline to gain more democrat votes. So he can simply move the goalpost at any time he wants?

And by pulling our own troops out and having UN step in means that our own troops would end up back in Iraq working for UN????? Just a speculation but exactly what does Kerry mean by that pending UN contract? Where will UN get its "troops" to help the Iraqi security force fight the insurgents? And are they capable of doing it?

But the recent polls show that not many democrats would vote for Hillary Clinton, Gore, and Kerry (Hillary losing ground

Patrick R. Sullivan

The argument Truthout is making is absurd on its face. Fitz can't secretly withdraw an indictment. It's not HIS, it's the GJ's.

And, the sources--'career federal law enforcement and federal government officials'--TO cites, wouldn't be in a position to know anyway. There are only two places that information could be available, Fitz's office or the GJ.

I wonder if there is anybody on Fitz's team with even a pang of conscience over what they're being used for?

Charlie (Colorado)

Well, is Lauria really an innocent party? Or just some sucker?

Carol, is that supposed to be a dichotomy? I'd have thought "just some sucker" would be an innocent party.

topsecretk9

Kurtz...

On a related matter, Hotline also notes that former CIA analyst Larry Johnson , in his No Quarter blog, had the following despicable comments about Rove and the Plame case:

"Karl is a shameless bastard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out."

Says Hotline's Blogometer:

"The vast majority of lefty bloggers have proven themselves capable of expressing their displeasure with Rove without uttering a comment as low as this. If lefty bloggers want to be taken seriously by Dems they must distance themselves from the Johnsons of the world the way righty bloggers have roundly criticized Coulter."

LOVE IT!

Semanticleo

I understand the optimism of all regardless
of what is known about the sealed information.

You have the same, "What me,Worry?" philosophy of your dear leader, because, whatever the truth, you always have January 2009. And what if Bush pardons everyone the way his father did(before the trial even began)? Didn't Clinton pardon Marc Rich? Tsk, tsk. That was mucho bat-guano egregious. Much more so than
what this team has done, uhhh, ALLEGEDLY done.

Lurker

""The vast majority of lefty bloggers have proven themselves capable of expressing their displeasure with Rove without uttering a comment as low as this. If lefty bloggers want to be taken seriously by Dems they must distance themselves from the Johnsons of the world the way righty bloggers have roundly criticized Coulter."

And Wilson, Ray McGovern, and VIPSers, ... who else?

I see that Bush raised $27 million last night.

MacRanger has an important post regarding the 3 US soldiers - never separate and never surrender...both unwritten rules passed from troop to troop. But the dems wouldn't understand these two rules.

Carol Herman

Pardon, me? In January 2009, John Bolton will be sworn in. The GOP will run their best candidate. While the donks at that point will be no more. So there'll be an assortment of 3rd Party "payees." WOn't win much. 1% here. 3% there.

Cleo's nuts. And, we're all entitled to our own crystal balls, when it comes to predicting the future.

Since Libby's done no wrong, what will piss off the donks, either before or after November's 2006 election, where Pelosi will keep her rag of "cleaning up the house," but won't get the donks out of the minority, just the same ... President Bush will WELCOME Libby back into the White House; saying "enough is enough."

Bill Clinton, whose pants are around his ankles, anyway, will mutter at what could be stuffed into pants pockets when it comes to waving around "Pardon" banners. Interesting, how people tend to remember that man's performance.

Lurker

OMG - Captain Quarter just reported that AQ of Iraq's top 5 terrorist killed - one of the men expected to succeed Zarq is now killed.

Centcom just reported it but so far, none of the wire services have picked up the story; I will fill in the details as they become available.

Taliban in Afghanistan is using women and children as human shields. Speaks highly of their Islamic religion, huh?

I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to pardon Libby just yet.

MayBee

Cleo- so you managed to get our jackboot off your neck? Kudos!
You know what's funny about the Marc Rich pardon? Scooter Libby! Maybe he's the one person in America that couldn't be called a hypocrite for happily receiving a last-minute questionable pardon.***


***personally, I think there is a healthy tradition of politically-hunted people getting politically-motivated pardons. I don't think Marc Rich qualifies, but a lot of the White Water people did. As will Libby. If he's convicted.

Cecil Turner

You have the same, "What me,Worry?" philosophy of your dear leader, because, whatever the truth, you always have January 2009.

Yeah, that's the ticket. A sealed indictment (it could happen!). So what if the dates are a little shaky? Leopold wouldn't lie . . . would he? And wingnuts are in denial, because they just don't want to accept the overwhelming evidence. It's just like that SSCI report (unanimous, shmunanimous . . . we know it was Bush, not Wilson, who was lying!), and those Butler guys ("well-founded" my tookus!). We don't want no stinkin' truth . . . get it out!

Too funny.

topsecretk9

Hee Hee-

Jeff Goldstein

"...and we shouldn’t get hung up on the niceties of the reasoning when what is at stake here is speaking Truthiness to Power, namely, the now-confirmed (albeit not yet quite “confirmed” confirmed) revelations that Karl Rove is a fat-assed liar who drove his own mother to suicide and who flipped on Dick Cheney.

And when the world sees Evil Dick with a pair of teardrop tats lifting weights in a federal pen alongside those Enron bitches, Jason Leopold will laugh and laugh and laugh!


http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20557/

Lurker

Perhaps Jeff Goldstein make a trip to EW's house (site), huh? I'm sure he'll find something to post after his trip there.

Lurker

Well, I just made a quick trip before my mtg, EW just posted about "Crying Wolf" over the North Korea TD-2 test as if the Bush adm is the origin of these "leaks" in order to re-initiate SDI.

clarice

Noah, Jane--AT is having some technical problems and has been slow beginning yesterday. They're working on it.

verner

EW is insane.Japan has just initiated a missle defense system that we've given them.

All praise to Ronald Reagan.

And speaking of EW, did the flat one ever denounce Larry's ugly comments? What about TL?

Nah--didn't think so.

Still waiting for the Captain's scoop to hit FOx News.

Jane

I just heard a report that we are readying our anti-missile defense - (I'm sure I said that wrong) re: North Korea.

Semanticleo

from WaPo

Two Missing U.S. Soldiers Found Dead in Iraq

By Jonathan Finer andJoshua Partlow
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; 11:04 AM

verner

Leo,

That's been on the news since 6AM.

A real tragedy--a further proof of what vicious bastards we're facing in this war on terror.

I'm sure the DU talking point is to use these deaths, and the suffering of these fine young men to claim that we should cut and run.

But then, who would be there to help the Iraqi government grind these monsters into dust? And they seem to be making a lot of progress lately.

Indeed, I wish the left would recognize the role they play in all this. Al Qaeda does this stuff for an audience. Torture a few American GI's to death--so the anti-war left has something to go ape shit over.

By the way--did anyone else see the pic pn LGF where the old hippie at a war protest was holding a sign that read "Victory for the Iraqi insurgency?"

The Unbeliever

Anyone else fascinated by this paragraph from TO?

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.

I, for one, am glad that we finally have the definitive answer to whether Fitz is politically motivated. TO says he's not! And don't you dare question how TO knows Fitz's motives and political aspirations--they don't know you, you're not a regular supporter, and therefore you may not question them!

My new theory for the identity of TO's sources: mind readers. Obviously TO gets their information via telepathy from a very powerful psychic, who read Fitz's mind and knows that Rove was secretly indicted, and Fitz is a courageous non-political warrior (commissioned by the Bush Administration, but let's just ignore that inconvenient fact).

Except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when the psychic has the day off. Then TO just runs with whatever they saw during the afternoon bong session.

Semanticleo

Verner;

Progress, in what sense? It seems the prisons
are being run by the militias in a similar fashion to the former regime. Oh, I see.
Now that it's OUR Nazis doing the nasty deeds,
THAT's progress.

BTW; Kudos to you for your LGF affinity.

Lew Clark

Since we're sliding a bit off topic and I got to vent.

Headline AP:

Ex-Bush Official Found Guilty In lobbyist Trial.

Who is this? Did they get Rove?

No, this is David Safavian, ex-Director of the General Services Administration. GSA is the federal agency that buys pencils, pens, leases buildings, etc. for the federal government. I have to assume that the Director is appointed by the President and probably is confirmed by the Senate. But it is one of those "other positions". A rubber stamp deal. I'm not sure the President even remembered the guys name. AP even goes on, in the article, to use the phrase "He resigned from his White House position". As if the Director of GSA has an office right next door to the Oval Office. When in fact, he works across town.
As much as I disliked Clinton, I would never have connected the dots to Clinton if the GSA Chief in 1998 was caught with his finger in the till. Unless there was actually a connection between the Clintons and the job "Can we say White House Travel Office?" This is as bad as a story about the Post Master in a little town in Nebraska shooting his wife and the story reads "Bush Official Commits Murder".
This is another example of Bush=Government, so anything bad in government has Bush's fingerprints on it, and all bad people in government are “Bushies“. Not to be confused with good people in government who are willing to commit "good crimes" to get Bush.

Since they've set the stage, the next headline I expect, the next time Murtha shoots off his mouth: "Bush Official Demands Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq!"

Semanticleo

BTW Maguire (Liberal Larry?)

Finally got around to reading comments at TO and discovered the origin of your cryptic derogation which devolved from 'Semanticlown'
(pure genius) to 'Semanticduck'(bemusing)

DarkDuck is in no way affiliated with me or my writing, and I demand an immediate retraction and effusive apologies for your slanderous attack upon my person(::chuckle::)

Only a sociopathic and shizoid personality who lacks any intestinal fortitude would hide behind an alter-ego.

Shame on you!

BTW; for the obtuse; I ALWAYS use Semanticleo. No other handle will suffice.

verner

And your source for that Leo? the WAPO? The same paper that said there were secret gulags in Poland?

I already read it.


And when you send suicide bombers into a Basra nursing home--as ALQaeda did yesterday, I don't think you should be surprised by a little militia type payback. Indeed, considering how vicious Al Qaeda has been, I'm surprised that there has not been more militia activity.

Yeah, the militias are a problem. But they have a new government now, that has broad support among the population, and seems to be reining the militias in.

I think Charles is a fantastic blogger. What's you're problem with him? You think he's an islamaphobe? Figures.

Semanticleo

figures.

verner

I'll tell you something else that figures Leo,

You're anti-war, you want to bring the boys home?

Well here's a little strategy you people might try.

Why don't you support the democratic,elected government of Iraq for a change.


Don't give the insurgency a reason to kill people by letting them know you think they're scum, and that the US will stay til the last dog dies so they may as well hang it up.

The war will be over before you know it.

Lurker

The response to the dems saying, "Victory to the Iraqi insurgents", here's the retort provided by Mac Ranger:

The Code

I am more in favor of beefing up our SDI program, initiated by Reagan AND killed by Kerry, of course!

Centcom news about the AQI leaders is slowly arriving but in confusion.

Lurker

And, verner, who funds KOS and Truthout?

topsecretk9

--Progress, in what sense? It seems the prisons
are being run by the militias in a similar fashion to the former regime. Oh, I see.
Now that it's OUR Nazis doing the nasty deeds,
THAT's progress.--

Sorry, um unaware we were running people through shredders...

Lurker

Well, JMHanes got a response from EW:

"Comments
Via Joseph Nobles at FDL, John Fund is working off the same talking point:

1. JOHN FUND: Appointing special prosecutors is almost always a mistake and in this case we now know there was no underlying crime and we knew did pretty early because Valerie Plame was not covered by the Agents’ Identity Act.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 18, 2006 at 23:21

ew, I agree. Yet another fabulous blog. I just posted on your very own last blog that I think Cheney was Woodward's source. As far as we know, THE FIRST SOURCE. I also think I made up a new word - "Fitz-fact". Please keep that big old beautiful brain of yours working in the gold mine!

Posted by: AlleyCat | June 18, 2006 at 23:34

There's an impeachment exception to the president's power to pardon; somewhere down the road this whole matter might lead to impeachment. Does the president have to be actually impeached but not convicted before the exception kicks in?

Posted by: Brian Boru | June 18, 2006 at 23:52

Well, GW did ask us after 9/11 to be alert. Be careful what you wish for...

I do believe that all of the parties will be pardoned, but that's no reason not to seek justice. We can't give up the search for truth.

Posted by: AlleyCat | June 19, 2006 at 00:14

Hi EmptyWheel! I keep wondering how Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald must feel about being punked by Karl Rove and Robert Luskin and Viveca Novak and presumably someone in the Dept. of Justice, if not Ashcroft himself.

It's well-known that Karl Rove operates in the dark recesses of life through an amazing network of well-cultivated and well-placed moles. It would strain credulity to not believe that, with his life on the line, Mr. Rove didn't put to good use all those contacts he had cultivated over the years. First, we have then Attorney General Ashcroft receiving regular briefings on the status of the Plame investigation. He, as well as other political operatives in his Dept. were privy to everything related to the Plame investigation. If we assume that Mr. Rove had a mole in the Dept. of Justice (which is not a stretch given his modus operandi)then we can assume that Mr. Rove had full knowledge of how the investigation was unfolding and which pieces of evidence the FBI had uncovered. Then, when the investigation is handed off to the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Rove, had one unexpected problem pop up, Matthew Cooper. At this point, Cooper was probably the only wild card for Rove in this whole investigation. Had it not been for his Attorney's unique relationship with Viveca Novak, Karl Rove might have been in legal jeopardy. It would appear that Viveca Novak, if not a mole, provided enough information for Mr. Rove to, once again, adjust his Grand Jury testimony to account for the Cooper testimony. In effect, Viveca Novak, played a key role in keeping Karl Rove out of legal jeopardy.

Several questions arise from the above scenario. As a Special Prosecutor, I'd want to know what happened during the time that Attorney General Ashcroft was getting his regular briefings and updates on the case (who else was privy to the details of the ongoing investigation and what relationship they might have to the target, Karl Rove, and whether they discussed anything related to the Plame investigation with anyone) and I'd want to fully understand the role of Viveca Novak and her fortuitious entrance into the case against Karl Rove. If Viveca Novak was passing along information to the attorney of a potential target of a Grand Jury that alerted that target to the probable testimony that a critical witness was preparing to testify to before the Grand Jury concering that target, why would the target's attorney and the source (effectively, a mole) not be in legal jeopardy for obstruction? Doesn't it appear that they effectively colluded to neuter the adverse testimony of the Time reporter, Matthew Cooper?

What does it all mean? Did he cut a deal? I don't know anyone who believes this. Did he punk the prosecutor? This seems to be the prevailing opinion among my friends. What I wonder, though, is, while he may have beaten the perjury rap, did he beat the obstruction rap, too? Or will the Special Prosectuor, having been punked once, redouble his efforts to ensure he doesn't get punked again? Or does he let it lie?

Anyway, my friends were not surprised that Karl Rove was not indicted. And the fact that he effectively punked the "great" Special Prosecutor, put more fear into them. Karl Rove came out of this bigger and badder than ever to the people who were already afraid to cross him. To them, it was more proof of his vast reach and ability to burrow under the system of justice.

Many thanks for all your research and analysis on matters Plame! You've done a great job covering all the nuances so many of us don't have to.

Posted by: Jon | June 19, 2006 at 00:26

Fascinating... I read this here, and then visit FDL, where Roger Ailes (the nice one) describes the following from Fox News Sunday:

Bill Kristol [...] demanded that Bush pardon Scooter Libby, saying once again that the Plame investigation is a "disgrace." According to Kristol, Ashcroft was wrong to recuse himself and name a special prosecutor, and the CIA was "out to get" someone in the White House.
Why it's almost as if someone were trying to send the boy prince a message. What next -- an editorial in the Washington Times? Oh yeah, dubya doesn't read the papers. Pass the popcorn please...

Posted by: radish | June 19, 2006 at 00:32

Why now? What is Pat's next move...

Posted by: Whig-Guy | June 19, 2006 at 00:57

A pardon? How could President Bush justify a Libby pardon? Since Rove squealed on Cheney was "non-indicted" last week, Bush now says he can't talk about the leak case because of the upcoming Libby trial. But if Bush pardons Libby beforehand, wouldn't it guarantee the perception that Bush was not only obstructing justice but had authorized the original crime?

Bush's statements about his role in the selective declassification of the NIE convince me he's involved in a conspiracy to polish Libby's alibi (notably related to his July 8th, 2003 meeting with Judy Miller). Any thoughts on that, emptywheel?

Posted by: QuickSilver | June 19, 2006 at 00:58

An "attorney familiar with the Plame case" could be any lawyer who reads a newspaper! What with the Cooper drafts, if Fitzgerald's case loses another wheel, Libby probably won't need a pardon, and the only place the VP might be working up a sweat these days is poolside.

Posted by: JM Hanes | June 19, 2006 at 01:05

Whoa...

emptywheel, you have consistently, along with Jeralynn Merritt (TalkLeft) and Christi (FireDogLake) been the most hard-headed and non-nonsense among the left-ish commentators on L'Affaire Plame.

With the non-indictment of Rove, and the revelations via TalkLeft that, apparently, no deals were done and no cooporation received in return for testimony, and and so on and so forth...

I am really interested to hear your justification for putting forward this thesis.

Keep in mind that I would LOVE to see this head all the way for the top, and would LOVE to see this become just the kind of GOP gotterdammerung that you describe.

But I have become weary and wary of silver bullets, wishful thinking, and hyped up, breathless proclamations of the imminent implosion of the cabal of thugs, liars and scum that have inserted themselves into our political infrastructure much the way that a tick burrows its head into the skin of a mangy dog.

Leopold, Ash, Pitt, Raw Story, and any number of breathlessly stupid escapades and credibility destroying fantasies have disabused me, and should disabuse just about everyone of the notion that thinking, speaking and writing something we desperately want will somehow make it so.

Can you explain your thinking on this?

Because it appears to me that the investigation itself is kinda done, and all that remains is the boring and pointless denouement of the Libby trial.

Can you tell me why I should expect more?

With all respect, and secret hopes that I am not willing to let lead me down the path of disappointment any more,

RedDan

Posted by: RedDan | June 19, 2006 at 01:54

Jon says:
As a Special Prosecutor, I'd want to know what happened during the time that Attorney General Ashcroft was getting his regular briefings and updates on the case (who else was privy to the details of the ongoing investigation and what relationship they might have to the target, Karl Rove, and whether they discussed anything related to the Plame investigation with anyone)

It may or may not be relevant, but Mark Corallo, who is now working for Rove, was John Ashcroft's spokesperson at Justice. (Completely OT but, Mark's parents used to be my neighbors and he helped us lay sod in our yard when he was in college. I didn't know at the time that he would go to the dark side.)

Posted by: Susan S | June 19, 2006 at 06:59

Jon

We don't know that Karl punked Fitz, exactly. He may have cooperated and Fitz decided his cooperation was worth more than his indictment.

QS

I'm not sure what this pardon talk is about, but it appears clear it's a talking point (3 mentions and one newspaper article in on day?). We could figure out who is delivering that talking point to figure out whether Bush really will consider pardon or not. Bill Kristol? John Fund? Sounds like a cabal move. So it's not clear they think they're going to get one. Or maybe they're just trying to move public opinion on the issue.

RedDan

I, too, don't want anyone to take a lot of hope from what I suspect happened. But look, all of this pardon talk, all of a sudden, suggests those on the right know there is something ongoing and know it might hurt Cheney.

But here's why I think Karl cooperated and therefore Fitz may be closer to either an IIPA indictment of Scooter (though, again, the pardon talk suggests something more) or some charge for Dick.


Apparently, the investigation is ongoing (it's not just Samborn's silence that says so, it's Armitage's silence on Monday, and a few more things he said)

VandeHei's article (linked in the post) correlates closely with Libby's lawyer's panic on May 5, that they needed to get evidence of all conversations Rove had during Leak Week

There has been new information since the indictment, specifically the 250 emails

Fitzgerald seems to be zeroing in on Libby's claim that Dick ordered him to leak the NIE--and that claim appears to be in crumbling, suggesting Fitz is closer to proving Dick ordered Libby to leak PLame's name (this by itself would prove intent and covert knowledge, since if he had to get the approval, it suggests he knew it was wrong)

I don't know where that will take us--after all, there is some question whether you can indict a sitting VP for something he did in office. Furthermore, does Cheney's authorization of an IIPA leak negate the IIPA crime? I'm sure he'd like to argue it does. So even if I'm right about Fitz getting closer to Cheney, it may not mean charges.

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 07:54

Thanks for that emptywheel...

It seems, therefore, that what we need to be doing is trying to lay out the various scenarios in very simple form.

1) Libby for perjury, Rove not cooperating, Rove not a witness, and Cheney??

2) Libby for perjury pending higher-level charges (depending on whether he squeals or not), Rove cooperating (to avoid similar perjury (plus) charges), and Cheney??

3) Rove for perjury, bumped up to IIPA, Rove implicated and cooperating, Cheney implicated, claims executive authority and post-facto declassification privileges, and they all skate except scooter for the technicality, for which he is immediately pardoned.

Worst case for us is "technically legal" actions on the part of those involved.

Right?

Posted by: RedDan | June 19, 2006 at 08:07

RedDan

Yeah, that's a good idea

I'd describe it this way:

1) Libby for perjury, Rove not cooperating, Fitz unable to make the obvious obstruction case, Cheney skates because Fitz can't get corroborating witnesses
2) Libby for perjury pending IIPA (with Judy), Rove cooperating for one of several reasons, Cheney for conspiracy to IIPA
3) Libby for perjury, Rove cooperating for one of several reasons, Cheney and Libby skate for IIPA related charges based on a technicality

The "one of several reasons" with Rove might be just an attempt to make sure he can work through the election (that is, he cooperates, implicating Libby further, but then Libby will be pardoned the day after the election), or it might reflect a split within the White House and an attempt to get Cheney out of there.

Now, given the urgent pardon talk, it really suggests the nutters know that significant evidence against Cheney exists. The question is, could Fitzgerald indict Cheney at all (that is, is there a way around the technicalities?), or are they just avoiding Fitz presenting more doozies like Cheney's annotated copy of Joe's op-ed.

And one more factor which I'm sure plays into this. The Wilsons have the right to sue--and Wilson's lawyer certainly sounded like he was moving that way in his Rove-day statement. You can't pardon a civil suit. So how does that play into pardon considerations?

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 08:35

Oh, one more point. If Fitz backed off Rove charges in consideration for his cooperation, then he must believe he can get around the technical issues ... or at least is willing to try.

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 08:36

Fund really doesn't seem to be talking pardon in his appearance on Reliable Sources. He goes on to put out the old standard talking points, but he doesn't seem to be talking about Libby's status.

Here's the entire quote


KURTZ: And he's still there and of course, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor has given no public explanation for his decision.

John Fund, so now, the only person who would be charged in this whole matter is Scooter Libby, the former Dick Cheney aide, who is accused of perjury but nobody will be charged with the underlying crime of outing a CIA operative in Valerie Plame. Had the media made too much of this case, in your view?

FUND: Well, look, the administration was boneheaded and clumsy in handling this. So a certain amount of attention is understandable, but, look, the media should have learned something for the last 20 years. Appointing special prosecutors is almost always a mistake and in this case we now know there was no underlying crime and we knew did pretty early because Valerie Plame was not covered by the Agents' Identity Act. So I think the media completely missed that part of the story.
CNN Transcript 6/18/06


Posted by: pollyusa | June 19, 2006 at 09:13

polly

You're right. When I mentioned it last night (my comment) I was saying he used the same "out of control prosecution" talking point as York made in May. And then I forgot what he had said when I responded to QS. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 09:23

WH seems to be acting surgically here, as you point out. It's telling by floating the pardon talking point with the sense of urgency that it's vital for WH to bully their way out of this immediately. Their effort is directed at "stopping" the forward progression, not defending it any longer. As you point out, pardon Libby, end Cheney exposure ... hold on to Congress in Fall. It's all about the election at this point.

Posted by: mainsailset | June 19, 2006 at 09:52

BushI pardoned Weinberger before the trial had even begun, and he may have a 'smidgin more scruples than the little acorn.

Posted by: Semanticleo | June 19, 2006 at 09:58

Here's an interesting piece of game theory: If the investigation is very much continuing, and if, as ew suggests, Fitzgerald is zeroing in on Cheney's role (in the leak, the cover-up, or both), then a pardon of Libby *alone* would present a problem for the cabal. As a criminal defendant facing jeopardy, Libby of course has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify about anything that might incriminate him. But if he Libby is pardoned, hae can be compelled to testify, as his Fifth Amendment right not to testify becomes moot. Thus, although I am sure we will see a pardon before trial, for Bush to pardon Libby too soon -- again, assuming there is an ongoing investigation that has Cheney in the cross-hairs -- then a premature pardon of Libby alone will not stave off a putative pursuit of Cheney, and might in fact make matters worse for the cabal. Put this together with the chorus of Cheney surrogates calling for a Libby pardon, and it is hard to resist the conclusion that the surrogates -- and perforce Cheney himself -- do not believe that the investigation has any chance of hitting him directly. Rather, they fear continuing damage to Cheney from the drip-drip of revelations from Fitz's files. The cabal might of course be wrong in this, but I think the best guess is that they do not see the investigation directly targeting Cheney.

Posted by: Sebastian Dangerfield | June 19, 2006 at 11:05

I am generally known as an optimist, and no one would like to see Cheney removed more than I, as it is step one in the Nixon scenario for removing Bush.

However, I'm with Red Dan and Jon here. The failure to indict Rove suggests to me that Fitz could not prove a case against him because Rove and Novak kept their mouths shut just enough. The IIPA charge is notoriously hard to prove, and I believe Fitz's words at his October, 2005 press conference that he would not bring a prosecution in that area unless he were very, very certain of conviction.

Yes, Fitz is admirable and tenacious in every way, and has gone after some very big fish, but Cheney is just too big a fish in my opinion. There are too many ways for the Admin to quietly curtail this prosecution. Bush may be unpopular, but this is not 1974-5, and no one, no one at all, in the GOP will countenance doing what was done in 1974-1975. Plus, not only was a very different generation in power then, but the Dems had the Congress.

I think Cheney masterminded this to cover up the fact that they knew the pre-war assertions about WMD were bogus, plus he took Wilson's criticisms personally. Rove got in for the smear part, because he could and he loves that stuff, and probably didn't know Valerie was covert. But they won't be called to account and Libby will be pardoned after the 2006 elections but before his trial, unless they need to do it sooner. Sorry.

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 19, 2006 at 11:13

Put this together with the chorus of Cheney surrogates calling for a Libby pardon, and it is hard to resist the conclusion that the surrogates -- and perforce Cheney himself -- do not believe that the investigation has any chance of hitting him directly. Rather, they fear continuing damage to Cheney from the drip-drip of revelations from Fitz's files.

Point well taken, Sebastian. I'd love to hear your thoughts about how a civil suit might affect things.

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 11:48

Now, given the urgent pardon talk...

A Newsday reporter calls a few people and gets DoGenova; a talking head recycles an idea that has vexed the Dems an dhung over this case as a possible endpoint for years; and now it is "urgent".

Gee, let me know what a full court media press look like.

From the always-interesting S Dangerfield:

a pardon of Libby *alone* would present a problem for the cabal. As a criminal defendant facing jeopardy, Libby of course has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify about anything that might incriminate him. But if he Libby is pardoned, hae can be compelled to testify, as his Fifth Amendment right not to testify becomes moot.

Presumably that depends on whether Libby is pardoned for everything he did, might have done, is alleged to have done by "media" sources, or thought about incorporating into his next fictional novel.

*If* the pardon is limited to his perjury/obstruction charges, I don't know why we could not see a superseding indictment, as has been promised by the left for months.

For an IIPA conviction, it would be helpful if someone could actualy prove that Cheney knew Ms. Plame was covert. Murray Waas had this, which was sort of the opposite of helpful to the Cause:

Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, according to people familiar with Cheney's interviews with the special prosecutor.

Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney, according to people with familiar with his statement to investigators.

Finally, the WaPo had this after the Rove announcement:

With Rove's situation resolved, the broader leak investigation is probably over, according to a source briefed on the status of the case. Fitzgerald does not appear to be pursuing criminal charges against former State Department official Richard L. Armitage, who is believed to have discussed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame with at least one reporter, according to the source.

"I'm not worried about my situation," Armitage said last night on the Charlie Rose television show.

A source briefed on the case said that the activities of Vice President Cheney and his aides were a key focus of the investigation, and that Cheney was not considered a target or primary subject of the investigation and is not likely to become one. There are no other outstanding issues to be investigated, the source said, though new ones could emerge as Fitzgerald continues to prosecute I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, on charges of lying to investigators and a grand jury.

I don't want to be the one to tell you, but...

Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 19, 2006 at 12:12

I’m not sure I agree with Sebastian. I understand his point to be that a pardon to Libby is intended not to protect Cheney from prosecution but to dry up embarrassing revelations against Cheney in Libby-related filings. However, the biggest issue to the administration is the mid-term election. In that context, keep in mind that any embarrassing revelations in Libby filings are noticed by a very small number of people. (99.999 percent of people couldn’t care less what Cheney wrote in the margins of Joe Wilson’s op-ed piece) However, a pardon of Libby would be huge MSM news. It may even be construed in the MSM as a way that Bush is protecting Cheney. Even if it isn’t, it would reinforce all the (true) negative stereotypes about the administration and the path to war. So, from the administration’s point of view, it probably is better to live with the damning revelations that few people will pay much attention to. This, to me, makes it more likely that the administration surrogates pushing for a Libby pardon may be doing so because there is genuine concern about what Fitzgerald has.

Posted by: Carl W. | June 19, 2006 at 12:23

Wow, Tom, you're usually not as credulous as this!

For an IIPA conviction, it would be helpful if someone could actualy prove that Cheney knew Ms. Plame was covert. Murray Waas had this, which was sort of the opposite of helpful to the Cause:

Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, according to people familiar with Cheney's interviews with the special prosecutor.

Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney, according to people with familiar with his statement to investigators.

Okay, so we have a discrepancy between Tenet and Cheney, which you assume means Cheney's telling the truth, we have known sources for Plame's identity (like Bolton and Fleitz), and we have Libby getting double super permission to leak whatever he was ordered to leak on July 8, which is looking increasingly unlikely to be the same NIE he leaked with no permission on June 25. You're right. I'm sure Dick didn't know Plame was covert.

Finally, the WaPo had this after the Rove announcement:

With Rove's situation resolved, the broader leak investigation is probably over, according to a source briefed on the status of the case. Fitzgerald does not appear to be pursuing criminal charges against former State Department official Richard L. Armitage, who is believed to have discussed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame with at least one reporter, according to the source.

"I'm not worried about my situation," Armitage said last night on the Charlie Rose television show.

A source briefed on the case said that the activities of Vice President Cheney and his aides were a key focus of the investigation, and that Cheney was not considered a target or primary subject of the investigation and is not likely to become one. There are no other outstanding issues to be investigated, the source said, though new ones could emerge as Fitzgerald continues to prosecute I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, on charges of lying to investigators and a grand jury.

So Pool Boy talks to Luskin who says the case is done, ignores the Armitage quotes that suggest Fitz is NOT done, and the same person points out that Cheney's activities have been a focus of the investigation but somehow figures that Fitz' not-doneness has nothing to do with clear evidence Cheney was directly involved (with intent) in this? Okay, so maybe I am being foolish. Care to explain, then, why the nutters are so worried about Fitzgerald's out of control investigation??

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 12:34

Carl W

But what if they have reason to believe the only thing Fitz has is an IIPA against Libby?

If Libby were indicted with that in about 2 months, then it would be fairly damanging and would presumably make the news. That wouldn't necessarily tie to Dick. But it would be something Bush could pre-empt with a pardon.

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 12:38

EW,

As I said the other day, I am consistently in danger of being in over my head on this stuff.

My layman's common sense opinion is this: It's pretty obvious to everyone that a conspiracy (used in a layman's sense of the word) occurred in the WH. Whether or not the culprits can be brought to justice is of course an entirely different matter. However, it seems odd to me that (again, from a non-lawyer perspective) the only person who is vulnerable is Libby.

I'm having trouble buying the fact that Fitz can throw the book at Libby (several, in fact), but that he can't/won't touch anyone else, since they all apparently were part of the same scheme and were acting with the same level of sloppy arrogance. It just doesn't make sense: That they can charge Libby with such a specific and hard-to-prove crime, but nobody else is vulnerable. That leads me to believe that Rove's non-indictment relates to someone other than Libby--why let Rove skate if you are just increasing the charges against somebody you already have?

The idea that going from the current status to IIPA makes it more likely that Libby will snitch on the others is true, but that takes time--and Fitz probably is concerned too about getting things as done as possible before November 9 and the reduction in leverage he will have then. A pardon in, say, December really won't impact the 2008 election--there are too many bigger issues to fry, and Bush isn’t running.

On the pardon question--and here being a non-lawyer helps--a pardon before the mid term would be a disaster for the administration. It would stink of Ford/Nixon and Clinton/Rich and protecting guilty people.

Posted by: Carl W. | June 19, 2006 at 12:55

That's why a pardon would come after the mid-terms (during the holidays).

I would be happy to be wrong. I'm just trying to be realistic, comparing things today with 1973-1975, and remembering what it took to get even unindicted co-conspirator status for Nixon from prosecutors who were conducting a very wide-ranging investigation following widely televised Congressional hearings. In a very different atmosphere.

Yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that said "I never thought I'd miss Nixon."

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 19, 2006 at 13:04

So doesn't it figure that Fitz would make his move on Cheney before the election, if he really does have the dope?

To me, there are two differences between this administration and Nixon's. One is that Nixon's public persona was what it was, and Bush's isn't. That counts for a lot. The other is that the there weren't nearly as high a concentration of truly anti-democratic forces in the Republican party then. They were there (led by Nixon), but the lion's share of those people--WW II vets--really believed in our system. This administration's actions speak for themselves.

Posted by: Carl W. | June 19, 2006 at 13:16

I agree, but both of those factors are why the GOP leadership won't turn on Bush the way a sufficient number of R leaders turned on Nixon. Unless and until there is a critical mass of R's willing to do so, Cheney isn't coming down regardless of what he did. If the Dems take the Congress and Rove starts to look not so smart and strong, things could change. That is my hope, anyway.

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 19, 2006 at 14:16

Mimikatz, it really gets to the heart of the matter: I agree that the republicans aren't bringing down Cheney until it is in their interests to do so. The question may really be whether Cheney is above the law.

Posted by: Carl W. | June 19, 2006 at 14:44

What urgency? If folks are discussing a possible pardon, it's probably because there's so little else left to talk about. Ditto for the critique of Fitzgerald's investigation, which hardly new. Seems to me the part you're having real trouble figuring out is that this investigation is seriously winding down. That's why there's almost nothing to report.

You rely heavily on di Genova when you're emphasizing the pardon talk, but ignore him as to timing completely: "DiGenova predicted that Bush, like other presidents, would issue controversial pardons on his last day in office" -- which would mean both that the trial was over and that Libby had actually been convicted. If another wheel falls off Fitzgerald's case, Libby won't even need a pardon.

The reason Fitz fought so hard to get the annotated Wilson op-ed admitted is because the very last thing the Sp.Prosecutor wants to do is put Cheney on the stand to contradict his argument to the jury. With the Cooper drafts in play, it's going to be plenty tough enough to meet his burden already. At this point, he's got to be worrying about whether he can even make the minimal charges against Libby stick, not going after anyone else. In any event, there will be very little in the way of new revelations till the trial gets underway in January, because discovery on classified materials will take place in camera.

Frankly, I think everybody but you is looking more relaxed than energetic. You're stretching pretty hard for distinctly evanescent links. At what point, after practically nothing has gone as predicted -- or more accurately, met your expections -- for a couple of years, do you begin to examine your own underlying assumptions about who might have actually done what?

Posted by: JM Hanes | June 19, 2006 at 15:11

I think the new triumphalist Tom Maguire's point about Cheney and Tenet is, or should be, that Tenet provided some very useful forgetfulness for Cheney.

Anyway, I do think the pardon talk reflects anxiety about Cheney - in fact, I think DiGenova admitted as much right after one of the very embarrassing Fitzgerald filings came out (probably the 4-5-06 reply to Libby's third motion to compel discovery). But I don't think it's legal anxiety, I think it's anxiety on the part of the administration and others about the damage that could be done to the White House by the unflattering portrayal of Cheney and OVP at the trial and in the lead-up to it.

So the point is I don't think there's necessarily any anxiety about where Fitzgerald is going with his prosecutions. I suspect the pardon talk is the sign of a straightforward political calculation: Rove off the hook means the political cost of pardons is significantly lowered, so it more easily is outweighed by avoiding the costs associated with political embarrassment for Cheney (which is costly to the administration, Cheney's own lack of concern about his reputation, such as it may be, notwithstanding). Moreover, Bush et al will simply send the quiet signal to their reporters that the pardon was done for Cheney's sake, not Bush's, at some cost to Bush himself etc etc, thereby further minimizing the cost.

But let me return to a point I've been trying to emphasize: the talk of pardons in the face of political embarrassment to Cheney regardless of the fact that he may not be legally vulnerable is another opportunity to put the focus on what Cheney and OVP were doing as a matter of fact in summer 2003, regardless of where Fitzgerald is going on the legal front. He may very well be wrapping up - though, having rethought it, I sort of doubt he'll announce an end to the investigation if he doesn't have to, in only to keep open the investigation so that anyone who is pardoned gains valuable (to Fitzgerald) immunity. But rather than putting the focus on where Fitzgerald is going, use the fact that he's probably wrapping up to call for a more thorough look at what actually happened.

I do think it's unfortunate that Fitzgerald announced, probably incorrectly, that he did not have the authority to issue a public report, or a report to Congress, or whatever.

Posted by: Jeff | June 19, 2006 at 15:44

Plato's Republic is a discussion about the meaning of Justice. Everyone is discussing the fine points about whether it is "harmony of the parts" (everyone happy in his place) or fairness, when Alcibiades walks in and says "Justice is the interest of the stronger." No one has a real answer for that.

That is not always so. Through long periods in this country fairness and equality (something IIRC PLato didn't discuss or think much of) have been key components of justice. Of course Cheney ought not to be above the law. But Justice is a blind woman, and Ashcroft covered her with a robe.

These are bad, bad times. But that is precisely when seeing clearly is needed, IMHO. But then, I have a touch of food poisoning and can't eat much, so maybe I am just grouchy today.

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 19, 2006 at 15:52

And I thknk you were correct earlier, EW, to give a big role to Viveca Novak, whose husband was reportedly appointed to the FEC last December.

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 19, 2006 at 16:04

And I'm certainly not saying that Cheney shouldn't be taken down, just that we can't expect Fitzgerald to do it in this climate. We have to chip away at their aura of invincibility and get enough voters to agree that he seems weak and incompetent enough fora sufficient number of R's to join in the enterprise of saving the country.

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 19, 2006 at 16:43

Jeff,

On what basis do you say that Fitzgerald is incorrect in stating that he can't make a public report? I thought the law on this was crystal clear and he was exactly right, but I'd love to be wrong.

Posted by: William Ockham | June 19, 2006 at 17:17

Jeff

"I do think it's unfortunate that Fitzgerald announced, probably incorrectly, that he did not have the authority to issue a public report, or a report to Congress, or whatever."

Ah, you're now seeing one of a host of problems which derive from Comey's explicit disavowal of the Special Prosecutor regulations in 28CFR600! Having relied exclusively on other DoJ statutory powers in making the Fitzgerald appointment, the controlling legal authority, as it were, may indeed prohibit precisely the sort of report you probably have in mind.

Save through indictment and trial, I don't believe a prosecutor can legally reveal what he has learned via grand jury testimony, and of course, the grand jury turned out to be a key investigative tool here. We know nothing, and aren't likely to learn much, about the agreements he made with individuals who testified via deposition either. In addition, the court, in the form of Judge Walton, for example, certainly seems sensitive to issues relating to the "innocent accused." If there's any one thing that characterizes Fitz's approach to motions, affadavits & discovery, it's that he consistently argues for revealing rather less than more. This is not simply a matter of protecting an ongoing investigation, it's a modus operandi.

The fact that Fitzgerald also cannot be required to issue a report or to account for his investigation in any way by anyone, is part and parcel of the "out of control prosecutor" complaint that has been so emphatically discounted in this very thread. The legislative act, and, I suspect, attendant litigation, that it would probably take to obtain such an accounting could all have been avoided, if Comey had simply utilized the existing guidelines and appointed a Special Prosecutor from outside the DoJ as specified.

Posted by: JM Hanes | June 19, 2006 at 17:25

Um, JM Hanes

I don't remember you hanging around here much, certainly not going back years. So I'd venture to guess you don't know a thing about whether what I've predicted has come to pass or not. Or perhaps you haven't even read one week of posts to see that I, along with several other people you probably believe you know the thoughts of, thought it very likely something like what happened on Monday would happen, that Karl would escape indictment for his actions (and that he wouldn't, at the same time, be able to claim innocence).

Also, perhaps you haven't even read this thread to see that it's not just DiGenova, but it's also Kristol talking about pardons.

Jeff

Yes, point well taken, we'd do well to keep the proven culpability of Dick at the forefront.

Posted by: emptywheel | June 19, 2006 at 17:42

Did you see that Matalin is hosting a dinner for Libby's defense fund? When the Plame scandal hit on K Street, all Matalin could talk about was that good people were going to have to pay for lawyers. They used the fictional scandal in K Street to make the same point. But it was laughable how every time they came back to Mary she was still going on about the injustice of having to spend money to lawyer up. Of all the injustices to obsess about! At least she's putting her money where her mouth is, getting behind this cause.

Posted by: SaltinWound | June 19, 2006 at 17:56

This may be annoying to some, but I am still interested in finding out who official one is. Does anyone know if Woodward has come out with the book that he was interviewing offical one for? Are there any clues in there that might point to offical one? Can it be used to definately exclude some people?

Posted by: tnhblog | June 19, 2006 at 17:59

Carl W. You're absolutely right that a pre-midterm pardon would be a huge political liability, but that is precisely why such a pardon will happen after the mid-terms. Because the Libby trial is not scheduled until after the mid-terms (Jeffress certainly earned his fees right there), and I would bet that it will move at least one more time, there’s plenty of room for exercising the pardon power at an opportune time after the election (Christmas time, perhaps).

EW: I started to write a looooong comment on the Wilsons’ possible civil suit, but it got rather dense and wooly even by my own rather lax standards and scrapped it. (Plus I didn’t want to do the cabals’ lawyers work for them by mapping out their motion to dismiss in detail.) I will try to reconstruct the gist of it and be brief (I will surely fail at both).

The bottom line is easily stated: Unfortunately, I don't hold much of any hope that a civil suit by the Wilsons would have much of any impact. As I see it, if they brought such a such a suit (which to my thinking is far from a foregone conclusion), it would not get very far. Indeed, I think there's a good chance that all or most of it would get tossed on a motion to dismiss, before discovery even gets going. (In a motion to dismiss, a defendant says, basically, even if I assume that every factual assertion in your complaint is true, they fail to add up to a claim for relief against me.) There’s some chance that, with careful pleading, a good draw on the judges wheel, and some luck, they would get to do some discovery and lose the case on summary judgment (which is a device by which the defendant takes all the evidence developed so far and says, if you take everything the plaintiff can introduce at trial as evidence, and assume a jury credits all the plaintiff’s evidence, there’s still no case.)

The longer version follows, with one big fat caveat that I have not done any real research on the potential claims but am instead relying on my general knowledge and experience with ordinary tort law and with "constitutional torts" (i.e., actions by individuals to recover against government officials who violate constitutional or statutory rights.)

A. The more sexy-sounding possibility is that the Wilsons could be contemplating a federal civil rights suit against Rove and the gang. For all you law geeks, this would be some kind of Bivens action (so named after Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, the Supreme Court case that recognized a right to sue federal government officials for violations of constitutional rights). The Supremes recognized a private right of action for Fourth Amendment violations in Bivens, but made it clear in that and subsequent decisions that it was not opening the door to creating a private damages cause of action for every conceivable violation of the Constitution or federal statutes. The lower federal courts have been, accordingly, pretty crabbed and grudging in their extension of Bivens into different contexts.

The problem will be for the Wilsons to articulate an actionable constitutional violation, which will not be easy. Even leaving aside the courts’ reticence to endorse Bivens remedies in any contexts other than those marked out by the Supremes (4th Amendment search and seizure, 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, 5th/14th Amendment discrimination), there are serious issues with any First Amendment retaliation theory or with any 5th Amendment liberty/due process theories, given the state of the case law.

And if the Wilsons got past all of this – that is assuming a court agrees that the facts as pleaded add up to a constitutional violation – they would have to deal with “qualified immunity” issues. In particular, the suit will have to survive a determination whether, at the time that the leakers did their leaking, it was “clearly established” that what they were doing was in fact unconstitutional. If the courts find that it was not “clearly established” that the activity is unconstitutional, then the suit is dismissed, even if the activity was inf act unconstitutional (funny old world, the law, ain’t it?). (Oh, and by the way, the defendants not only get to raise this defense at every point in the proceedings, they can also appeal any adverse determination on qualified immunity {say, at the motion-to dismiss or summary-judgment stages} immediately and repeatedly. The whole qualified immunity scheme is designed to help official defendants get these cases knocked out early or tied up in pretrial proceedings forever.)

The only other federal claim that comes to mind is a civil action under the Privacy Act—which could be a more promising path than the civil rights route. I don’t know a whole lot about the Privacy Act other than the fact that it is atrociously drafted and that has made for a lot of very messy case law. My gut feeling is that the Plame disclosures don’t deal with the kinds of information that Congress had in mind when enacting the Privacy Act, but again, my knowledge here is limited and the subject is rather vast. The Wen ho Lee case might have been an interesting test of what kinds of information come within the Privacy Act, and it involved government officials smearing an individual through leaks to boot, but it settled after the D.C. Circuit upheld contempt sanctions against reporters who had refused to testify in civil discovery as to their contacts with government officials. (Incidentally, if it is the case that the Privacy Act applies to the disclosures here, then you can kiss goodbye any constitutional Bivens action, as the case law is very clear that where Congress has provided some kind of remedy, even if it’s not a very good remedy, the courts will not imply a Bivens-type remedy. But the Wilsons wouldn't have to deal with the qualified immunity dance with a Privacy Act claim.)

Finally, there are, it seems to me, two types of what I’m calling “ordinary tort” claims that the Wilsons could consider bringing: (1) some kind of defamation-related claim, or (2) an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim. A defamation claim in this context is, it seems to me, dead on arrival. Joe Wilson is clearly a “public figure” at least for the purpose of this debate, and thus for his own claims, he would have to show that the defendants published false and defamatory information about him with reckless disregard for whether the information was true or false, which I just don’t see here. Different story for Valerie, who was patently not a “public figure” prior to her outing and who was clearly injured by the disclosures, but I see serious problems for her trying to make out a viable defamation claim. I have a problem, for instance, with the fact that Valerie was not injured by the false part of the story – the stupid pushback point that Cheney didn’t send Wilson, Valerie at the CIA did – but rather by the true part of the story, i.e., the fact of her CIA employment. You just can't base a defamation action on a true statement.

IIED is something of an all-purpose, garbage-can type of tort action which requires, among other things a showing that the defendant deliberately engaged in behavior that is “outrageous” with the intent that it cause severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard for whether it did so. The key vulnerability will be in showing that the behavior is “extreme and outrageous” as a matter of law . While I think it was pretty outrageous – and so would most folks around here – the courts tend look for really really shocking stuff; the threshold is very high and I could easily see a court – particularly with the kinds of federal judges that are becoming an increasing percentage of the bench – throwing the case out on the ground that the conduct, while clearly not very nice, was not “outrageous”; call it the Rich Cohen standard. Moreover, the facts that would help show "outrageousness" -- like the effect on CIA ops and networks -- is not information that it seems the CIA is eager to allow to be made public.

That’s my gloomy take on the civil suit. I'm not saying the suit can't or shouldn't be brought, just that it's a long shot. I do, however, tend to err on the side of pessimism when evaluating the viability of claims – it’s just a professional habit. But I think there are enough problems here that I wouldn’t rest much of any hopes on vindication through civil litigation here. Now, if it turns out that the Privacy Act can be applied here (or that any other claim survives a motion to dismiss), the Wilsons could at least survive long enough to get into discovery, which could certainly make these schmucks uncomfortable.

If I were bringing such a suit, I’d bring it in federal court in D.C., where there are some very good trial judges, where it is abundantly clear that there ain’t no reporter privilege, and where you have deep blue jury pool. Since the appeals court is going to be every bit as important as the trial court, I would much prefer the D.C. Circuit if I were the Wilsons. Although many D.C. Circuit judges are very conservative, some of those are principled. And that court has already dealt with the Cooper and Miller subpoena cases in a way favorable to the anti-anti-Wilson camp. I’d avoid Maryland like the plague if I had a choice in the matter, as the last court in the country I would want deciding appeals in this case would be the 4th Circuit.


Posted by: Sebastian Dangerfield | June 19, 2006 at 19:08

SaltinWound-I'm sure Matalin is especially sensitive to the cost of attorneys. She and her husband are close friends with the Clintons (who themselves racked up a huge attorney bill and LDF), and Carville has himself had to pay to defend himself against some Clinton-related accusations (Gennifer Flowers).

Posted by: MayBee | June 19, 2006 at 19:09

Mimikatz;

""Justice is the interest of the stronger." "

Appreciate the Platonic reference but, as our good friend Maguire
would quickly remind those who visit his blog, "We're all about
winning". Justice for these folks is having your neck pinned under
their jackboot. Anything less is simple sentimentality and human weakness.

Posted by: Semanticleo | June 19, 2006 at 19:15

MayBee, I'm not denying it can be a legitimate gripe. It's a sense of proportion that seems to be lacking. Who else is close friends with who? This is interesting!

Posted by: SaltinWound | June 19, 2006 at 19:32

I have to turn off the italics! Everything is too emphatic.

Posted by: QuickSilver | June 19, 2006 at 19:58

OK, I can't find the quote now but I did hear President Bush say on T.V.last week, in regard to the Plame investigation, that the White House had been informed that the investigation was over. And the New York Times, June 14, 2006, reported that "the decision to decline to prosecute Rove effectively ends the active investigative phase of Fitzgerald's inquiry."


Posted by: Jon | June 19, 2006 at 21:07

Go read truthout's latest.

It's either brilliant, tragic, or craaaaaaaazy and only time will tell.

My bet is on deep, deep, denial...but then again, this post of emptywheel's seems to be suggesting that Cheney is still in the sights.

Which is what truthout is suggesting.

Hey! Emptywheel? Why don't you write a post suggesting that Bush is in the sights...and see if Truthout magically finds the same info?

Posted by: RedDan | June 19, 2006 at 21:20

emptywheel

Actually, I've lurked here with some regularity for awhile, although I've only left an occasional comment relatively recently. In my initial post above, where I refer to predictions & expectations, I meant "you" in the general, not the particular sense. In light of the preceding sentences, however, I do see that I failed to make that clear, which I regret.

At the same time, I still think the inferences you're trying to draw here are a major stretch, and that characterizations like describing York & Libby's lawyers as "panicking" strike me as more wishful than accurate. Ditto for the "proven culpability of Cheney" and the idea that he's really starting to sweat now that Rove has wriggled off the hook.

FYI, I did, indeed, read this thread and saw Kristol mentioned, sans link, but I was addressing your argument which relied largely on di Genova. Subsequent commenters appeared to be unaware that last minute pardons were what he had in mind. Perhaps they didn't actually take the time to follow your links as I did. As for Kristol himself, if you read the transcript, his comments sounds pretty unremarkable given his long standing condemnation of Fitzgerald's investigation as a political crusade -- you've noted as much elsewhere yourself.

If you prefer that I refrain from voicing an opinion here, you have only to ask, and I will certainly oblige.

Posted by: JM Hanes | June 19, 2006 at 22:14

Citing fundraising amounts and budgets is an interesting view of the cost of a civil society. Maybe Al Gore and Company temporized adequately to avoid the fundraising from the White House prosecution; credit side of the ledger. It is a reasonable time now to assess the Rove cost, and pardon cost, in a political sense. The Libby defense cost is diminutive compared to a quadrennial campaign budget. The target costs prominently now are political, which, to me, is the motive behind the mantras Nothing Illegal, Too Narrow IIPA. Since Ykos, refutation nearby-here, has become quantifiably more cerebral. A lot of it is interesting. I find surprisingly I resist any attribution of justice to the duplicitious Alcibiades; loyalty is an interesting way to write one's chronicle. The conjectures about how Rove got exempted comprise an interesting thread in which to mention Alcibiades; but we are talking about several such characters guiding the ship of state. Rove has company in that respect. I think the Amb. has taken a fairly circumspect approach to whether to observe the outcome of the Libby indictment before launching a personal complaint, as the long legal discussion, above, delineates. Having perused argument of a few of the defense counselors already involved, I expect some reconfiguration of any prior approach to such a knotty problem; essentially, the administration is only skating on thin ice with regard to quite a number of extralegal innovations it has pursued as core management style; it is beyond what other administrations have attempted. The several court actions ongoing in which the solicitor general is claiming state secrets I see as laying the groundwork for some such attempt to paint the Libby indictment with a similar graymail brushstroke. On the discussion about whether Fitzgerald will issue a report, or someone else will, I have read various interpretations; all I take to be too early in the process now for a conclusion, although I need to study the matter more; one generalist who discussed the matter at the time of expiration of the first Grand Jury broadly though not specifically appeared to agree with the legal theory as developed by the commenter above. I still believe the outcomes in the Anna Diggs Taylor court over the next few months, as well as that in Vaughn Walker's court beginning again this week, might add to the administration's sense of chastisement; something Alcibiades never would endure. Plato kind of misses the essence by grasping for the ephemera; but democracy as a government form, and inductive thinking as a millenia human discipline were in their infancy at that time. It seems from here this administration is tarred and facing serial elections and fairly important explaining to do before some smart judges.

Posted by: JohnLopresti | June 19, 2006 at 22:29

There is no justice system in America if they walk for these crimes against humanity.
Fitz has not been bought-but the media has. He says nothing-while Rove's liar says Fitz sent him a fax, Fitz called him and cannot produce the exact wording -which is it? Fitz cannot comment ongoing investigation.

Then a criminal case shows up in Pacer Sealed. v. Sealed at just the time when Rove should have been indicted. It is perfect for the other side, they seal up what they know should be an indictment-discounting, discrediting most blogs on the left predicting indictment -all at the same time. It's not like there isn't enough evidence for it. That just meant Fitz had to get going on the other indictments-Cheney & Assoc...

Posted by: Uncle Sam | June 19, 2006 at 22:36

"Then a criminal case shows up in Pacer Sealed. v. Sealed at just the time when Rove should have been indicted."

Not precisely. Because cases are numbered consecutively, Sealed vs. Sealed would have to have been filed on either May 16th or 17th. Pacer also gives no indication as to whether "06 cr 128", as it's incorrectly labeled, represents an indictment or something else. I believe we subsequently learned that the grand jury was considering other matters on the Friday 12th, which means they would have had to hand down the indictment on Wesnesday the 10th, at the latest. Mr. Ash glossed over the fact that he had to expand the timeline slightly backward in one of his editorial posts to accomodate that information.

Posted by: JM Hanes | June 19, 2006 at 23:00

I believe Ruskin said that Fitz "does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time". Is "seeking" the weasel word?

Might it have been more accurate to say Fitz does not anticipate pressing charges (that have already been sealed)?

Posted by: John Forde | June 20, 2006 at 00:39

Matalin sure is conspicuously leading the Libby defense effort, money-wise.

Posted by: kim | June 20, 2006 at 08:50

JM Hanes

Well, you had me until you suggested Dick's culpability hasn't been proven. On an IIPA charge? No. On central involvement in a smear of Joe Wilson? Well, I guess not if you're arguing that the guy who writes the talking points isn't centrally involved. Though I tend to consider that culpable.

We welcome civil and intelligent discussion over here, of whatever partisan stripe. But I would appreciate if your comments about me or any of the other commenters was more careful. We stick pretty close to court filings and other provable data--and yes, we speculate based on that. While our speculations may prove to be wrong, they are usually better founded then a lot of what the right mindlessly produces and some on the left breathlessly proclaim."

Stick pretty close to court filings and other provable data? And didn't appreciate your namecalling?

Sue

Verner,

The war would have been over in 2003 if everyone had stayed united (notice I didn't just blame the left, there are those on the right who bolted at the first sign of trouble, too). That is the only way we can be defeated. By splitting us...

Of course, that would mean Bush would have had a victory and by God, Bush ain't gonna get a victory, not on their watch.

Does it piss me off? Hell...freaking...yeah...the blood of our soldiers sits as squarely on their shoulders as it does Bush's...the difference being...Bush isn't running from the blood.

Jerkweeds...dirty, low life, rotten, jerkwees...

Lurker

Oops, sorry for the long post. I meant to post the last one only. Deep apologies.

Tom Maguire

Here is a link to the Kurtz piece:

By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 20, 2006; 8:14 AM

I'm not a big fan of stories that are based purely on speculation.

Isn't there enough hot air around without newspapers adding to the global warming?

It's easy: You call up a bunch of lawyers, consultants, commentators or other quoteworthy types, ask them what-if questions and then put it in the paper, saying "new questions have emerged" or "observers are wondering" or something like that.

Many, many legitimate stories have been written about the Valerie Plame case and the subsequent indictment of Scooter Libby (not to mention the non-indictment of Karl Rove). No one really knows what will happen in the case, but apparently there's starting to be some chatter about whether the former Cheney aide will eventually receive a presidential pardon.

Is that worth a news story, without the merest wisp of a peg to hang it on? After all, I hear chatter every day, about all sorts of things, but I don't put it in the paper.

Newsday disagrees, running this story over the weekend:

Re "Semanticduck" - is there a "Dark Duck" at TruthOut? Imagine my non-surprise.

However, I was think more that you were *duck*ing the question about the Haha blog's banning policy, which seemed to be, "Don't Bother Correcting Me, Because You Are Wrong (or banished).

Lurker

So sad to read the latest news that our missing soldiers were beheaded.

Talk about the dems wanting us to treat them according to the Geneva treaty.

Also sad that the dems and uncle are saying that we have no plan to bring peace to Iraq.

Sad that the dems want us to pull out now.

verner

Have faith Sue, The Iraqi military hate them even more then we do. They've had dozens of their soldiers beheaded. And they've got a Sunni hard ass at the helm as of last week.

Payback is hell. The just got a whole bunch of Al Qaeda leadership in the last few days.

Expect more. And I sure wouldn't want to face the 101st right about now.

But of course, like the monsters they are, the anti-war left will milk this situation with the blood of our soldiers for all it is worth.

clarice

OT: In about five minutes I'll be on Righttalk radio (Paul Schiffer's show) discussing Haditha.

vnjagvet

For you Pacer users:

In most of the Criminal docket (the ones with CR in the Case No.) the first name on the caption is, understandably, USA.

But on the caption in question, the title is referred to as "Sealed v. Sealed"

Why on earth would the USA title in any criminal indictment be "sealed"? Wouldn't the proper caption be "USA v. sealed".

Sealed v. Sealed would indicate to me that both parties to the case are being kept from the public. Since there is no reason to keep the USA as a party in a criminal case from the public, who is the mysterious party if the other sealed party is e.g. "Rove"?.

clarice

vnjagvet, I have no idea. I do recall that persons investigating this claim found 30 such captioned cases in the D.C. Court pacer files.

I had thought since this bore the number of the Libby case and was filed on May 16 or 17 it involved Time's document response to Libby's discovery request. But I can't swear that's what it is.
Maybe it's a secret DC mental institution vs. Jason Leopold.

Gary Maxwell

What an involuntary commitment hearing? Now that is a conspiracy I am quite willing to believe, as his own actions will be Exhibits 1 to infinity and beyond.

vnjagvet

CF:

Has anyone seen an unsealed case on the CR docket in PACER that has as the leading party something other than the USA?

clarice

Yes, what I am talking about is 30 cases titled Sealed v Sealed, vnjagvet..

Jane

I think someone posted that it was a glitch resulting from the changeover in computer systems.

Lurker

"But of course, like the monsters they are, the anti-war left will milk this situation with the blood of our soldiers for all it is worth."

Yup, they sure did.

The idiots.

Check blogometer for blogger links (need to scroll down).

Lurker

Confederate Yankee closed his post:

"But these killings will not be received favorably by the U.S. military in Iraq, which will likely step up operations to hunt down and destroy terror and insurgent cells operating in this part of Iraq. Though official orders will not be given, perhaps U.S. forces will not be so inclined to take prisoners after this incident. Insurgents and their al Qaeda allies set the tone of giving U.S. forces no quarter when they took prisoners.

They made a huge mistake."

verner

They have no shame Lurker.

cathyf

I think that whenever these scumbag war criminals hide behind civilians they should be summarily killed. Make that the rule -- if you hide behind civilians and we catch you, you are dead. Steer clear of civilians, if you surrender you go to prison.

Isn't that what the Geneva Convention says anyway?

cathy :-)

John Loki

Any activity at the Court house this morning??? Have federal marshalls frog-walked Cheney yet?? LOL!

The comments to this entry are closed.