Powered by TypePad

« Putting The 'Thermo' In Thermoplyae | Main | The Libby Juror »

March 12, 2007

Comments

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

Given the absurdity of prosecuting Libby to begin with, one has to wonder why Fitzgerald didn't find some reason to call Cheney.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Sue

Is this another example of speaking truth to power? I am trying to hone in on the true meaning of that nasty little phrase. So far, it seems to be if you can twist the facts to suit your agenda, you get to call it speaking truth to power.

clarice feldman

Yes, Cheney said wait around in your office until reporters call and ask about Plame and then say you heard that, too "or words to that effect".

I am sick of commentaters tossing out stuff that makes no sense if you know--like--the actual record of the case. Though I still heart Mickey.


*****
On another topic, we can see the snakes are still doing their magic at DoJ. Re the firing of the 8 prosecutors...If the DoJ had simply said they were tired and we thought we'd need new blood it would have been the end of the story. But as the Spectator notes, Gonzales' deputy McNulty argued it was a performance issue and opened up this s**t storm and gave Schumer the opportunity to push for Gonzales' removal.
And here it gets really cute--McNulty is close to Schumer and Comey and Fitzgerald and as Gonzales' deputy he'd take over if Gonzales leaves...and you can bet given Schumer's ability to tie up confirmation of a replacement that McNulty would be in that slot until the nest preisdent takes over.

clarice feldman

**neXt***

Rick Ballard

Nick Kasoff,

It's not necessary to 'sign' your comments when your 'posted by' field contains the same info. Hit whoring gets rather old rather quickly and, while understandable, it's rarely considered admirable.

You get about the same attention if you trackback, why not give it a try?

Patrick

Oh, dear, Toobin has an "article" in the New Yorker, in which he gets just about nothing correct.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/03/19/070319taco_talk_toobin

Sheesh.

PeterUK

This all still rests on the very feeble concept of outing as punishment.

maryrose

Gonzales has done nothing wrong. He is allowed to fire whomever he chooses. Let Schumer bloviate. Who cares? Last time I checked Schumer is not the President. I know he wants to be .but guess what-he isn't. Too bad D'Amato didn't beat him years ago. He's the one who wants a litmus test for judges. He is and continues to be bad news.
Cheney is in the clear-he's untouchable-much to the consternation of the Left.

Other Tom

It is the "outing as punishment" line that has bewildered me the most from the outset. And it has bewildered me because despite its transparent absurdity it has not, to my knowledge, ever been questioned. Does anyone seriously think that this strutting popinjay, rightly dubbed a "blowhard" by the Washington Post, felt "punished" as he posed in his Jaguar for Vanity Fair? Does the publicity-seeking fraud feel punished by his innumberable appearances before a fawning media? Is the Warner Bros. movie deal an additional element of the punishment? Before he was "punished," did he have a snowball's chance in Hell of showing up at the White House press dinner? God, when will the nonsense end...

MikeS

The Libby case was confusing, because the prosecution's theory of the case was confusing. So I can understand Toobin's desire to restate the case so that it sounds coherent.

The evidence from Toobin's perspective was overwhelming, but doesn't he know the defense rested early? The defense didn't call Libby and several other witnesses because the thought they had the case won! How can anyone write a summary of the case and leave that out?

Richard Aubrey

I may have missed something.

Is "classified" as a description of an employment situation the same as "covert"? Does it have any meaning?
AFAIK, only covert agents are protected. In some corporations, employees are "classified" or "non" or "un" classified, which may mean something about firing at will, or assignment restrictions or something.

Plame could well have been "classified" without being covert, without being protected, and outing her would be legal, or possibly meaningless.

bubarooni

did you see eric alterman (jonathan alter?) on imus this morning?

he said fitz was spineless for not indicting cheney or something to that effect.

it's hard to believe he gets bad to write.

Other Tom

RA: classified is indeed not synonymous with covert, at least so far as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is concerned. That one's employment status be classified is a prerequiste for being covert, but the employee must also have had overseas service in the five years immediately preceding a disclosure in order for the crime of outing a covert agent to occur. I strongly suspect that long-time CIA parlance holds that anyone who is under cover, either official or non-official cover, is covert--but that's an entirely separate matter from how the term is defined in the IIPA.

Charlie (Colorado)

although it was not in front of the grand jury and hence was not "under oath",

I don't think that follows, Tom. You can make a deposition under oath in a ladies room if it's convenient.

bio mom

She was classified but not covert. All CIA agents are classified, I believe. It is not that big a deal.

This case is one of those national nightmares that will never stop. Like John Kerry.

Spartacvs

Once Fitzgerald realized he had insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for the leak of Plame's identity under the Identities Protection Act or related legislation, it would have become obvious to him that the residual constituted a political crime for which no one could be prosecuted at law unless they were guilty of lying, obstruction or perjury during his investigation. Cheney would have an absolute defense during any questioning under oath, in that he was authorized to leak/declassify Plame's identity as he saw fit in the interests of National Security as he perceived it. This defense was also available to Scooter if he had chosen to use it as he did for the selective leaking of the NIE, but for obvious reasons Cheney would have been loath to use it and I commend Fitzgerald for realizing that it was not his mandate nor his job to force the issue. All that remained then was the prosecution of Scooter for throwing sand in his face.

clarice feldman

I think neither Cheney nor Bush testified under oath as that would be quite a departure from precedent. They also appeared voluntariily--I have no reason to think Fitz had the right to subpoena their testimony.

_______

Stalled leak investigations (more crap at DoJ):
"The top Republican on the House's main investigative committee, Rep. Thomas Davis of Virginia, is charging the Justice Department with stonewalling his inquiries about the FBI's assertion that it closed several leak investigations because of a lack of cooperation on the part of other government officials.

In January, Mr. Davis asked the Justice Department about a report in The New York Sun that at least three leak inquiries were shut down after officials at the "victim agency" ignored phone calls and canceled meetings with FBI agents assigned to the probes. The agents said some requests for information were rebuffed for more than a year.

On Friday, the lawmaker, the ranking Republican member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a sharply worded letter to Attorney General Gonzales, expressing "aggravation" at the Justice Department's handling of questions about the aborted investigations.

"General Gonzales, it would be an understatement to say I am frustrated and disappointed by your department's response," Mr. Davis wrote. Mr. Davis said he would agree to procedures for a classified briefing, but that the Justice Department replied that "the concern is not classification." Mr. Davis's letter also disclosed that the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, is conducting an internal review of the bureau's handling of leak cases."

http://www.nysun.com/article/50228?page_no=1

Jane

It's a "national outrage" that will provide ammunition for the future. Watch for it.

If that is how it is going to go, we may as well get good at it.

Steve

Regarding J. Toobin. Anybody who still believes Wilson is a straight shooting whistleblower has MUCH bigger issues than his ability to analyze the Libby defense strategy.

Syl

Oh, dear, Toobin has an "article" in the New Yorker, in which he gets just about nothing correct.

That's just great. :( My mom gets ALL her information from CBS, a BDS inflicted friend, and...

The New Yorker.

What's printed in The New Yorker is the whole truth in her eyes.

Oh well, give it up Syl, your mom is almost 84 and in the scheme of things it doesn't matter what she believes including that her daughter has gone stark raving mad.

At least she voted for Lieberman.

Cecil Turner

She was classified but not covert. All CIA agents are classified, I believe.

On the first point, that looks to be correct: she had been covert, but was no longer. On the second, some are not classified, since many appear in open hearings (e.g., to testify to Congress).

All that remained then was the prosecution of Scooter for throwing sand in his face.

Looked a lot more like "persecution of Scooter for a misfiring memory neuron." The idea that where Scooter thought he heard about Plame when he discussed it with reporters made the leaking case a close call is a bunch of hooey. Fitz admitted the true problem in his earlier affidavit:

To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.
(It's also typical Fitz overstatement: "covert work" is a meaningless term apparently designed to get around the IIPA requirement for having "served outside the United States" in the last five years.) And Toobin got one thing right:
The ruination of Libby, by all accounts an intelligent and dedicated man, is not cause for celebration.

Other Tom

Is Davis on Waxman's committee? It is my understanding that Waxman's ostensible reason for inviting Plame and Fitzgerald to testify is an inquiry into the administration's handling of classified information. (What on earth would Larry Johnson know about that subject, by the way?) I would certainly hope that in any such hearings the Republicans would inquire long and hard about the release of classified information concerning the NSA surveillance program, the CIA's "ghost pilots" recently outed by the LA Times, and the entirely lawful financial monitoring program in Europe. But I have never been cured of my lifelong exasperation with the Republicans' inability to handle political theatre, particularly when they are in the minority.

MikeS

I had a look at this regarding intelligence classifications.
www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/icmarkings.ppt

I suspect that all employees (even) of the CIA have a 'classified' relationship with the CIA.

Information can be 'classified' at several levels. For example it may be classified as Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential. Information may also be 'classified' as Unclassified.

Something about the way it rolls off Fitz' tongue, makes me think that Val was classified in the last category.

Jane

It is my understanding that Waxman's ostensible reason for inviting Plame and Fitzgerald to testify is an inquiry into the administration's handling of classified information.

I'm pretty sure Waxman is looking to get Rove and Cheney's security clearances voided for negligence over the Plame leak.

If you look at what he has released lately, that is where all this is pointing.


hit and run

Syl:
in the scheme of things it doesn't matter what she believes including that her daughter has gone stark raving mad.


Hey, from my point of view, having people think you're stark raving mad has its advantages.

roanoke

with the Republicans' inability to handle political theatre, particularly when they are in the minority.

They need to boycott the show.

Quit playing or fighting the damn battles that the Democrats have chosen.

Find a reason to kill the damn thing.

You are going to have blondie playing the Democrat's favorite role-

"Victim."

Jane

Mike,

Val is not "information". Do you know how those categories apply to people, or how that is determined?

hit and run

It is my understanding that Waxman's ostensible reason for inviting Plame and Fitzgerald to testify is an inquiry into the administration's handling of classified information.


Well, and when you read his letters - he states repeatedly and singularly "White House". Not government, not even administration.

Spartacvs

Cecil :

"persecution of Scooter for a misfiring memory neuron."

Didn't wash with the jury.

Scooter's peddling of false stories to investigators, his obstruction of a Federal investigation and his perjury before a grand jury have now been entered into the record as facts established before the law by way of a jury verdict of guilty.

Try to stay relevant.

MikeS

Jane
Don't know.
I think that perhaps her 'relationship with the CIA' is the information Fitz is referring to

Jane

her 'relationship with the CIA'

I never thought about it like that. Altho I'm not sure her relationship could be classified is she drove to Langely every day. Are the security guards at Langely considered classified?

Cecil Turner

I'm pretty sure Waxman is looking to get Rove and Cheney's security clearances voided for negligence over the Plame leak.

Wouldn't be too surprising, cuz Waxman is brain-dead . . . but it's silly, even for him. One thing that came out loud and clear at trial is that the CIA folks passed that info along with no warnings that it was classified. And if they don't treat it like it's classified, why should anyone else?

Scooter's peddling of false stories to investigators, his obstruction of a Federal investigation and his perjury before a grand jury have now been entered into the record as facts established before the law by way of a jury verdict of guilty.

Yeah, and the jury never makes mistakes, eh? Hey, just out of curiosity, if this is overturned on appeal, does it then mean it never happened? Do the "facts" come with date stamps? And does the "fact" that the juror logic is obviously faulty have any bearing on the validity of your "facts"?

There was just so many of those things that -- it was just very hard not to believe how he could remember it on a Tuesday and then forget it on a Thursday and then remember it two days later.

Other Tom

It's reassuring to know that Waxman and his committee lack the power to revoke anyone's security clearance. I disagree with the idea of boycotting the thing; I would rather see the GOP come out swinging, although I am not holding my breath. Why shouldn't Jay Rockefeller's clearance be revoked, while we're at it? But don't expect that topic to be raised by any Republican...

Syl

Most CIA employees who work at Langley do not have a status that is classified.

The fact they are employed by CIA is not classified.

Which means for most employees of the CIA who work at Langley it's perfectly okay to say 'she works for the CIA'.

I suspect it's also okay to say Valery Plame Wilson works at CIA. It is not okay to say she works at the CIA in WMD and associate her with an ex-envoy who trotted off to Niger to hunt down info on yellowcake.

Jane

Why shouldn't Jay Rockefeller's clearance be revoked, while we're at it

How about John Kerry's. Let's have hearings on them too.

roanoke

Cecil-

Well you are talking to and about Liberals who's most stressful decision of the day might be what they want at Starbuck's-

Latte,breve..no wait soy!...venti....no,no uhhh, make that a grande!

I know guys at the bottom of the totem pole in the War on Terror.

A new DO forgot he had to go to Iraq. Even though the day before he had confirmed it to the squadron secretary. He confrimed it again in the morning but had forgot again in the afternoon. They called the wife and told her to get him packed. It was only a ten day trip but still he had forgotten.

His commander couldn't say much that week he had locked his keys in his car with the car running....

They are in a critically manned career field but still they aren't in Libby's position either.

Liberals can't empathize with that kind of stress.

There too busy deciding how they should type-

BushMcChimpHitler. (stressful stuff)

Spartacvs

Cecil :

just out of curiosity, if this is overturned on appeal, does it then mean it never happened?

It means Scooter is exonerated as opposed to should he be pardoned, which is open to interpretation. I wouldn't hold your breath on a successful appeal though, a pardon from our lame duck President as he slinks out the back door remains Scooter's best bet. I would caution you however that thus far loyalty has been shown to be a one way street in this WH.

Pofarmer

the residual constituted a political crime

That's a scary statement right there.

sylvia

"That said, Libby's lies did not really offer him any legal protection, as he explained to Fitzgerald - if Libby had known Ms. Plame's status to be classified (Fitzgerald had no witness who claimed to have told Libby that), he does not gain any legal cover by pretending to source to to reporters."

I beg to differ Tom. I feel like a lawyer with all this studying I have done of laws lately, but it all comes down to the law. And if you read the covert agent law,(IIPA?) you'll see this in the beginning.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information..

(The terms are defined as follows:)

1) The term "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order...

2) The term "authorized", when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute...


If Libby can make the case that he got his "remembered" information from a reporter, that would mean he didn't get his information from "authorized access" sources. Now of course you could read the law that it says "having had", that it didn't matter if Libby remembered but that he EVER got authorized access, but then the law goes on to speak about "intent". If Libby does not in his mind "remember" about the official sources, then he does not have the intent to give out information gained through "authorized access", so the infraction would have missing elements. Again, if you read the law it states "having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent" so to me it means that THAT information gained through authorized access is the SAME information used in the leak, otherwise it doesn't count.

That's how I interpret it anyway. After all there had to have been SOME advantage for Libby to fib, and even you admit the possibilty that he might have. So can YOU think of any OTHER motive? (sorry, love the caps)

Bill in AZ

forgetting... during a period of much corporate travel, I once woke up after dozing briefly on a rental car shuttle bus - and couldn't remember whether I had just landed and need a car, or just parked and needed a plane.

royf

That's a scary statement right there.

This has been a political hit job from the beginning, false accusations stirred by the partisan press. A DA uninterested in literally hundreds of inconsistencies and actually feeding the confusion.

But the moonbats aren't worried because it brought down a member of the Bush administration. So what if it damages the thought of justice in this country.

Tom Maguire

I don't think that follows, Tom. You can make a deposition under oath in a ladies room if it's convenient.

Me, in a ladies room? I would find that to be most inconvenient!

But I see your point.

it's hard to believe he gets bad to write.

Eric Alterman? I believe it.

it would have become obvious to him that the residual constituted a political crime for which no one could be prosecuted at law unless they were guilty of lying, obstruction or perjury during his investigation.

The metaphysics of obstructing a non-investigation elude me, since there is a materiality requirement. Perjury I get as a matter of law, although I question the wisdom of pursuing it in this case.

Pofarmer

If Libby can make the case that he got his "remembered" information from a reporter, that would mean he didn't get his information from "authorized access" sources.

Except if that was the tack he was going to take, why did he mention Cheney at all, and at the first FBI interveiw? I mean, really, that just throws doubt on it at the very first minute.

Basically, I don't think Libby fibbed. I think he might have misremembered, but I don't think he intentionally lied. The fact that you have to make up all these wild scenarios to have him lying, kind of supports my case, I would think.

sylvia

"Me, in a ladies room? I would find that to be most convenient!"

Well Tom, I guess there's another side to you that we have yet to be revealed to us!

[Sorry, that side has been cryptically edited out of existence - I was trying to embolden "inconvenient" and managed a rather embarrassing shortening.]

sylvia

"Except if that was the tack he was going to take, why did he mention Cheney at all, and at the first FBI interveiw?"

Because Cheney didn't want to perjure himself, and he knew Cheney was going to come out with it all. So that was the best Libby could come up with.

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

Nick Kasoff,

It's not necessary to 'sign' your comments when your 'posted by' field contains the same info. Hit whoring gets rather old rather quickly and, while understandable, it's rarely considered admirable.

You get about the same attention if you trackback, why not give it a try?

Sorry, Rick, I'm so used to pasting a signature that I didn't even think about it. Is this better?

Jane

forgetting... during a period of much corporate travel, I once woke up after dozing briefly on a rental car shuttle bus - and couldn't remember whether I had just landed and need a car, or just parked and needed a plane.

That is very funny! (And a little scary too)

roanoke

Bill in AZ-

LOL! gha...


Tom-

To boldly go, where no man has gone before.

Rick Ballard

Thank you, Nick. It's better and you'll get more hits, too.

Pofarmer

Because Cheney didn't want to perjure himself, and he knew Cheney was going to come out with it all. So that was the best Libby could come up with.

Uhhmmmm

Why not just beleive Libby? "The Wife" was a sideshow to the NIE, not the other way around.

sylvia

Ha ha Tom. But you tampered with my post! My editorial freedom had been threatened! Jk. Feel free to tamper. I'm sure you'd improve them much. Anyway, I could think of more embarrassing shortenings. (Actually I'm not really sure what that means.)

sylvia

"Why not just beleive Libby?"

Because I'm a naturally suspicious *itch?

Spartacvs

Tom Maguire :

The metaphysics of obstructing a non-investigation elude me, since there is a materiality requirement. Perjury I get as a matter of law, although I question the wisdom of pursuing it in this case.

Non-investigation only becomes operative if you believe there was a non-leak of Plame's identity. We know the chronology of how the leak investigation got started and Fitzgerald's appointment, so it's more than disingenuous for anyone to be raising that particular canard at this late stage. Fitzgerald was wise not to pursue Cheney and just doing his job when faced with Scooters dissembling, you ought to give him credit for that much.

roanoke

sylvia

Because I'm a naturally suspicious *itch?

I suspect you are single.

Pofarmer

Because I'm a naturally suspicious *itch?

Channel it elsewhere. I think you're being suspicious of the wrong bunch. Look who out and out leaked the info (Plame) first. Listen to how it was done. Look how Fleischer came up with the info.

There's is no testimony that states that Plame/Wilson was important to Libby or the OVP before the Russert conversation. Something was said during that conversation that set Libby off. What it was is hard to say. As someone else said, It could have been as Simple as Russert stating, "Did you know my wife works at X" that cause Libby's brain to put 2 and 2 together. There's just no evidence of some "conspiracy" to "get Wilson" by "outing Plame". Wilson's fabrications, yes, Ms. Wilson, not so much, at least not untill Corn's article.

sylvia

Roanoke, I like to blog as if disjointed from all real life facts. In fact, I hardly even give away my gender on blogs, so I have really opened up here. You all must make me feel so comfortable here...

sylvia

"Channel it elsewhere."

If not here, than where?

clarice feldman

Comedy Central?

sylvia

Well Po, then Libby REALLY needs that memory expert to testify, and go through the minimal nature of the prior Plame conversations.

sylvia

Everyone's a comedian today.

roanoke

Well I've got worse travel stories than Bill in AZ...

Before 9/11 I accidentally stayed a day late and hopped on a plane on the wrong day and they let me.

Other stories too...

You might have had me arrested for bigamy with the attitude you claim yourself to have.

I know you're comfortable enough here to ask people that take the time to respond to your comments whether or not they can read.

When they were completely polite to you.

sylvia

"You might have had me arrested for bigamy with the attitude you claim yourself to have."

Huh?

TexasIsHeaven

Beginning with the 1999 edition of Who's Who Joseph Wilson gives his wife's name, Valerie Elise Plame, their marriage date, and his life history.

Schedule A, Itemized Receipts for the Gore 2000, Inc. Committee lists $2000, March 26, 1999 from Joseph Wilson of Washington DC.

Immediately under his name is Valerie E. Wilson, same address, who gave $1000 on April 22, 1999. Both give their places of employment and their occupation.

How many covert CIA agents make this kind of information freely available to the general public?

And these places were not the only ones where this information was to be had.

Hells Bells! Anyone with half a brain can look this stuff up!

And some ignorant ass at the CIA wanted an investigation? How can anyone possibly be that stupid and still live?

Other Tom

I agree with Spartacvs that Libby is now established as a liar, even has I know he agrees that, for the same reasons he relies on, Bill Clinton is established as a liar and Sandy Berger as a criminal. I'll go further and rank the three men's wrongdoings in order: (1) Berger, (2) Libbby, (3) Clinton. How do you rank them, Spart.?

If a pardon of Libby would mean that Bush is "slinking out the back door," how must one chracterize Clinton's exit after having pardoned Marc Rich? And I think we can all agree that Bush won't be taking any of the china or the silverware with him.

The mind reels from the overheated rhetoric of the doofus Left.

Spartacvs

TexasIsHeaven :

Does she list her occupation as CIA operative in the Who's Who entry?

Spartacvs

Other Tom :

I carry no water for Clinton.

(1) Scooter
(2) Clinton
(3) Berger

Though there is a large gap between Scooter's crimes and anything Clinton did, similarly between Clinton and Berger. Clinton's 'crime' only gets ranked so highly because it contributed significantly toward the subsequent reign of the Boy King.

TexasIsHeaven

"Does she list her occupation as CIA operative in the Who's Who entry?"

The Who's Who is Joe's bio - not hers.

The Federal Election report is where she lists her occ as an analyst, and of course she doesn't list the CIA as her employer - it was Brewster-Jennings.

If she is driving to Langley everyday to work and making the DC cocktail party circuit and she using her maiden name, how hard would it be to figure out who she was working for and who she was married to?

cathyf

Gee, Tom, I was hoping that you were going to point out that according to the rules of grand jury secrecy, Fitzgerald should have been immediately fired when he filed papers in open court last spring detailing the vice president's somewhat unusual declassification procedure with respect to the NIE. Supposedly this was a case about Libby lying about conversations with reporters -- how does that give Fitzgerald license to blab whatever he wants to that he learned in grand jury testimony when it is utterly irrelevant to the charges which he brought?

Pofarmer

Though there is a large gap between Scooter's crimes and anything Clinton did,

Well, at least that we can agree on.

PeterUK

roanoke,
"Quit playing or fighting the damn battles that the Democrats have chosen."

They can't be ignored,just like al Qaeda they will carry on fighting without you.

Pofarmer

,i>Well Po, then Libby REALLY needs that memory expert to testify, and go through the minimal nature of the prior Plame conversations.

Yep. Walton just helped the setup along.

Pofarmer

They can't be ignored,just like al Qaeda they will carry on fighting without you.

The surest way to lose is to not fight.

clarice feldman

cathyf, damned good point.And Fitz left that stand for a week as speculation fluttered. I wish I'd remembered to add that to the OPR filing. Maybe someone else will.

Other Tom

What Berger did was to steal and destroy documents, some of them possibly unique (no existing copies), pertaining to a congressional inquiry concerning the nation's vulnerability to the attacks of September 11, 2001. I guess reasonable minds can differ over priorities.

"Carryin no water for Clinton" means, I suppose, condemning him harshly for the pardon of Marc Rich. Did he "slink out the back door?"

Pofarmer

Hold on there Other Tom. You are leaving some stuff out.


Berger,

There were multiple eyewitnesses to the act.
He lied about it, openly.

There are very few similarities between what Berger did, and what Libby may or may not have done. I don't think there's any reasonable question with Berger. The only question is was his punishment reasonable.

PeterUK

PeterUK-

I'm not saying stop fighting them. I'm saying for the Republicans to choose the terrain.

Right now with this crap the Republicans look like they are in the valley of Dien Bien Phu.

roanoke

PeterUK-

I'm not saying stop fighting them. I'm saying for the Republicans to choose the terrain.

Right now with this crap the Republicans look like they are in the valley of Dien Bien Phu.

[Jeebus sorry I stole your handle there for a sec.]


MikeS

Syl
Referring to your 10:37 post. I think your explanation is the most reasonable and likely.

I was thinking of classified and confidential more as every day speech, or common vernacular.

I worked at a Fortune 500 company where all personnel information was classified as confidential.

Pofarmer

I'm not saying stop fighting them. I'm saying for the Republicans to choose the terrain.

With no conservatve leadership in evidence, and a hostile MSM, it's gonna be real hard to do anything but be reactive.

PeterUK

"Because I'm a naturally suspicious *itch?"

I had a friend who came back from Cairo with that.

Spartacvs

TexasIsHeaven :

If she is driving to Langley everyday to work and making the DC cocktail party circuit and she using her maiden name, how hard would it be to figure out who she was working for and who she was married to?

Not very hard if she were to arouse someones suspicions sufficient to tail her while driving to work, which no one that I am aware of has offered any evidence was the case.

TexasIsHeaven

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

PeterUK

roanoke,
This isn't the,it isn't the geography,it is the narrative,you haven't learned to destroy the narrative before it gets hold.
What should have been done is invite Joe and Val to the White House,award her the Congressional Medal of Honour and posted Joe to the Emabassy in Switzerland.
Most of this debacle arose from pique,Joe because he was snubbed,Powell because he was made a fool of in the UN and Fleischer because he had to publicly recant the sixteen words.

PeterUK

"Not very hard if she were to arouse someones suspicions sufficient to tail her while driving to work, which no one that I am aware of has offered any evidence was the case."

Langley,of course,is not itself under surveillance,what are all these foreign intelligence services doing to earn their money?

hit and run

what are all these foreign intelligence services doing to earn their money?

Reading the NYT and LAT and WaPo.

If you ask me, they're terribly overpaid for what they actually have to do to get intel secrets from the US.

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

Pofarmer:

With no conservatve leadership in evidence, and a hostile MSM, it's gonna be real hard to do anything but be reactive.

That's a way to guarantee defeat. Seems like with millions of conservatives in America, there ought to be at least some leadership around. Very sad.

Syl

Can Rudi (Rudy?) effectively fight the press and the Dems?

I think the ability to stand up and counter the moonbat press should be the litmus test. If a president can do that, it will make him more effective at fighting the jihadi movement as well.


Syl

No more Mr. Nice Guy!!

jerry

"It is the 'outing as punishment' line that has bewildered me the most from the outset."

Suppose the real target for punishment was Val, not Joe.

Her group had been opposing the WH on Iraq WMDs for months, if not years, and stories were bubbling up in the press about this battle as no WMDs were being found (esp. Kristof in May 2003).

Well, the WH couldn't go directly after Val because she was covert/overt/classified and they knew it!! Whatever it was it remains one big black box in this case, that not one government official is willing to discuss.

So they talk off the record with the press:

'Joe Wilson isn't just GHW Bush's former Iraq Ambassador [and BTW a hero for standing up to Saddam] this story is traitorous inside politics by Wilson, he's a liar.'

Once Wilson's op-ed comes out, then they have a public cause to include Val:

'Wilson isn't just GHW Bush's former Iraq Ambassador but his wife works at the CIA on WMDs and she sent him, this story is traitorous inside politics by the CIA!'

The point I would make is that they knew of Valerie Plame's work for a long time and knew exactly what they were doing when they started discussing her with reporters.

Charlie (Colorado)

Not very hard if she were to arouse someones suspicions sufficient to tail her while driving to work, which no one that I am aware of has offered any evidence was the case.

I think there's a bunch of sloppy mis-handling of terms here. There *are* people who work for another firm, but who go to CIA every day. They (or their firms) are called "beltway bandits", and they work under contract.

If you work for a "bandit", you're not necessarily covert, and your employment is certainly not classified. That *almost* fits Valerie --- except that if she were a contractor, CIA wouldn't confirm her as an employee, because, well, she *wouldn't* be an employee.

You could also be a CIA employee, and work at a bandit firm; in that case, you might be considered to be under non-official cover (NOC), although I think that would generally be used only if you're employed overseas. But if they meant to keep you at arm's length from CIA that way, you wouldn't be going to Langley all the time. And again, they wouldn't confirm you as a CIA employee.

If you were a CIA employee, your job role might be classified; VP works for CIA: (U); CIA looks at nonproliferation issues:(U); VP works at CIA on non-proliferation issues: (C) or higher. But then I'd have expected Novak to get a stronger phone call than "we'd prefer you didn't write about her."

The only way that this all seems to fit the facts is if VP worked for CIA and wasn't considered classified in her current job.

PeterUK

"Her group had been opposing the WH on Iraq WMDs for months, if not years, and stories were bubbling up in the press about this battle as no WMDs were being found (esp. Kristof in May 2003)."

According to you then,Plame's office had been leaking classified information to the press?
Further if Plame knew that there were no WMD,why send her husband to Niger,why not go herself and make an official report.
Why indeed did not the wretched woman avail herself of the "whistleblower's" procedure.This makes it appear as if Joe was sent to out the administration.

Neo

All CIA agents are classified, I believe. It is not that big a deal.

The names of the janitors at the CIA are classified.

Neo

Does anybody really think that Val Flame was a "NOC' or "covert" after documents containing her name were accidentally sent to the Cubans ?

If she was, she is a damn fool.

Barney Frank

--Suppose the real target for punishment was Val, not Joe.--

If this was the case, wouldn't the easier route have been to fire, demote or reassign her?

Charlie (Colorado)

The names of the janitors at the CIA are classified.

Honest to God, that's not true. It was in the old days, maybe 30 years ago, when you said "I work for DoD". But it isn't any more.

Sara (The Squiggler)

Dems May Fight White House for CIA Leak Case Testimony...

Waxman wish list.

Neo

Personally, I think Waxman is opening a Pandora's Box.

"you have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em"

The long history of Special Prosecutors has shown that Congressional hearings are almost always a farce, when compared to a criminal investigation. If there was any "there there" Fitz would have been happy to show it to the grand jury.

On the bright side, I look at this as the best chance to get the CIA referral made public. It also gives a platform to explain what the OVP was up to.

Go Henry .. you fool.

Neo

This would also act as "pre-trial hearing" of the Wilson-Flame civil suit, with Congress (err taxpayers) paying the travel expenses.

AMDG

Other Tom Says:
“I agree with Spartacvs that Libby is now established as a liar . . . “

AMDG Responds:
I still cannot get away from the fact that during his FBI interview and his GJ testimony Libby stated that the first to tell him about Secret Agent Girl was Cheney in June. He was convicted of lying about what he remembered his state of mind to be during his conversations with Russert, several months after those conversations took place.

Since he had nothing to gain by lying about his state of mind, I think the memory issues are a more reasonable explanation than deliberate lying. If he confirmed Russert’s recollections (FBI versus later testimony), he would not have been in any more jeopardy.

1.
What would be his motive for lying?

2.
How did his erroneous testimony throw sand in Javert’s face?

clarice

Fitz has only said his investigation is presently "inactive". On that basis no one in the Administration should testify.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame