Powered by TypePad

« Patterico On The Flt 327 Dry Run | Main | Bush's Incompetence Bends Space And Time »

June 03, 2007

Comments

PeterUK.

"And there was apparently a WMD "dog and pony show" that went to Canada among other places -- sure, Canada is a friendly government, but if the CIA outed Plame to the Canadian government, then, sorry, not covert."

Just an odd little point,the two disciplines of covert agent,recruit and the like,and WMD expert are very far apart.Is it likely that any intelligence agency would risk putting a WMD expert in the field?
Spies know they are expendable ,at risk of detection,which is why there are cutoffs and cell systems.
Was the CIA short staffed?

Sue

Snake us

I have never heard that phrase before. And I have never heard such a made-up story before.

sammy small

Maybe my memory is completely shaky, but I don't ever remember so many politically polarized and tainted DOJ investigations during one administration (and I don't count the incompetence of Reno in this statement). Politics is driving justice, not the intent of the laws.

clarice

Correction--that first report seems to be in error--it is 16 counts against Jefferson.

boris

Trying to discuss with Cychotroll is just an exercise in:

... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ... Did So ... Did Not ...

The troll is impervious to fact or reason. Catch it in a flagrant falsehood and it simply continues to spout the same drivel as before.

Other Tom

"And I will reiterate that this is an assertion with neither argumentation of logic nor factual support, and therefore little more than your opinion."

The factual support and argumentation have been set forth at great length on this site for many weeks now. That is why I say I'm not going to do Cyclops's homework for him.

As for Jefferson, I don't say that he's guilty. I say that I believe he's a corrupt politician, and I devoutly hope that he's found guilty. But I believe the statutes that he will stand accused of violating are clear and unambiguous, and have received an abundance of judicial gloss over the years. That is not true of the IIPA.

topsecretk9

16 counts...up to 203 years.

Cycloptichorn

Politics is driving justice, not the intent of the laws.

You are 100% correct on this one. This Plame incident is only a small part of a much larger effort to subvert the DoJ, on the part of the Republican party who is currently in power.

boris

have been set forth at great length on this site for many weeks now

If Cychotroll can't comprehend the arguments or keep track of basic facts, then obviously they don't exist you see.

Cycloptichorn

Boris,
The troll is impervious to fact or reason. Catch it in a flagrant falsehood and it simply continues to spout the same drivel as before.

This is an assertion and little more than an opinion on your part. If you were able to bring a factual argument to the table - and referring back to the 'weeks and weeks' of supposed argumentation is not the same thing as offering a clear and cogent wrap-up of one's position - then you would maybe have some validity to make this statement.

In the absence of this, I perceive more partisan sour grapes and accusations of trolling.

I suspect that after Libby is sentenced tommorrow, it will grow worse...

Cycloptichorn

What's really amazing to me is that you seem completely unable to move past childish name-calling, Boris, yet you persist in identifying me as a troll. I would suggest examining your own behavior before criticizing others.

Great Banana

You are 100% correct on this one. This Plame incident is only a small part of a much larger effort to subvert the DoJ, on the part of the Republican party who is currently in power.

Interesting. While I don't agree with the lame "KNown Facts" upon which you base this absurd opinion, I must ask - you do realize that DOJ is NOT an independent agency, but is under the Executive Branch, meaning that it works for the President?

I'm asking b/c I have found that most on the left, in their idolization of beauracratic agencies, seem to beleive that the agencies are somehow independent of the Executive Branch and don't have to answer to the President or follow the president's orders. I'm just wondering if you are one of those nuts or if you actually understand how our government works?

boris

an assertion and little more than an opinion

Liar. Have http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/05/valerie_plame_t.html#comment-71223650
">forgotten already?

topsecretk9

or 230 years -

Cycloptichorn

I'm just wondering if you are one of those nuts or if you actually understand how our government works?

GB, there are elements of the DoJ which are political ones, and elements which are non-political. When there is a concerted and far-reaching effort to politicize the traditionally non-political elements of the DoJ, it worries myself and others.

It isn't a crazy thing - imagine if the same sort of actions were being undertaken during the upcoming Democratic presidency. You wouldn't be pleased to find out that the elements of our judiciary which should be impartial, are slowly being replaced with consistently Liberal viewpoints. And neither would I, even though this is the viewpoint I traditionally support.

It is not a healthy thing when one party gets too much power. The DoJ works for the people of America, not for whatever party is in power at the time. When this becomes unclear, there's a serious problem.

RichatUF

Jefferson to be indicted today


And the always great Clarice at the AT about a year ago

And the Fedora piece at FR referenced in the AT article


And Clinton's 1998 and 2000 Africa trips. From Stanford, haven't poked around the other links yet

I've been looking has the indictment been published yet- the Ap says 16 counts, 96 pages

RichatUF

Great Banana

This is an assertion and little more than an opinion on your part. If you were able to bring a factual argument to the table - and referring back to the 'weeks and weeks' of supposed argumentation is not the same thing as offering a clear and cogent wrap-up of one's position - then you would maybe have some validity to make this statement.

Every argument made you state is an "assertion" and then, aside from that, you don't answer the argument. Thus, why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

If you have any understanding of the legal system, you would understand that it IS important that no court has interpreted the IIPA yet, as without court interpretation, we don't know exactly what the act actually means (i.e., it can be interpreted in different ways).

THis is not true of cases such as Jefferson, where laws regarding bribery, etc., are well settled and thus we can look at facts and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Now, in the case of the IIPA, we have someone who is an expert on the statute, having taken part in developing and writing the statute - Toensing, who you simply dismiss out of hand. It may be that she is biased, but her arguments as to the IIPA are solid - please explain your contention that they are not solid, and that the IIPA was in fact violated by Libby.

Certainly, if Fitzy believed Libby violated the statute, he would have brought such a prosecution, no? How does it comply with Due Process to now claim that he violated the IIPA for purposes of sentencing when he faield to bring any charges under that Act. If your answer is that Libby's "lies" prevented a prosecution under the IIPA - I state so what? How does that make it appropriate to bring up the IIPA in sentencing, when nothing was presented or proven in regard to the IIPA? It is always the government's burden to prove a criminal violation beyond a reasonable doubt. Fitzy has not even come close with respect to the IIPA.

And, why does Fitzy not give us a date range when Plame was allegedly serving outside the U.S.? Or, are you contending that she did not need to do so for IIPA to apply?

Finally, please provide a citation to the statement by Waxmen that you believe "proves" that Plame was "covert" under the IIPA. If I recall correctly, that "known fact" was debunked a long time ago - that the statement was much, much too vague to prove any such thing.

Jane

I really hate the part of the day when the troll takes over. Perhaps we could ignore cyclops for a while and he'll go back serving his function at daily kos where he belongs.

Cycloptichorn

No such luck, Jane; I am perfectly capable of holding on dual conversations.

GB, two points:

First, I believe the IIPA was brought up at sentencing for the sole reason that there have been many assertions by supporters of Libby that there was 'no underlying crime' and no reason to prosecute at all. I don't really see evidence that Fitz is claiming that Libby should get a stronger sentence then he already would be facing for his Perjury and ObJustice claims, but merely that the situation is serious enough that the sentencing for these crimes should not be reduced by protestations that there were no 'underlying crimes.'

I highly doubt that Fitz, an experienced prosecutor, doesn't know the law, and doesn't understand what is and isnt' appropriate for the judge to consdier when it comes to sentencing.

I don't think that there is positive proof, IE, court-of-law proof, being offered that the IIPA was violated; but I do believe that there is a good amount of evidence that this is true, in the form of:

Plame's assertion that she was undercover;

The CIA's assertion that she was undercover;

The CIA's assertion that she had served overseas.

I have not seen evidence to counter any of these assertions, but mere speculation that they are not true based upon accusations of lying on someone's part.

It would require an actual trial to see how the courts would interpret the IIPA in this case. I believe the 'knowingly' clause in the IIPA makes it quite difficult to try such a case without direct testimony that people involved knew exactly what they were doing. Otherwise, it would be an expensive joke, as circumstancial evidence would not be able to prove the 'knowingly outed' clause. And you are correct that this points directly to the Obstruction of Justice charges.

RichatUF

and cy says...

You are 100% correct on this one. This Plame incident is only a small part of a much larger effort to subvert the DoJ, on the part of the Republican party who is currently in power.

Or more likely the Plame incident is part of a larger effort to subvert US politics by those "esteemed experts and professionals" in the government bureaucracy that don't really like the Bush Administration. See also Carl Schmitt

RichatUF

Great Banana

GB, there are elements of the DoJ which are political ones, and elements which are non-political. When there is a concerted and far-reaching effort to politicize the traditionally non-political elements of the DoJ, it worries myself and others.

No, there is a DOJ which is part of the Executive Branch of which the President is the boss. Period. This is something that the left fails to understand, b/c they believe in "beauracracy" and big government and want unaccountable beauracrats to control our lives. While some functions of the DOJ go on from admin to admin w/o changing in character, they ultimately serve whoever the president is - and if they don't want to follow the elected president's orders, should resign. If the president uses the agency in a way the electorate does not like then the electorate can vote against the president in the next election. If someone from the DOJ does something illegal, they should be prosecuted. But, there is NO SUCH THING as an independent, non-policitcally controlled, agency.

It isn't a crazy thing - imagine if the same sort of actions were being undertaken during the upcoming Democratic presidency. You wouldn't be pleased to find out that the elements of our judiciary which should be impartial, are slowly being replaced with consistently Liberal viewpoints. And neither would I, even though this is the viewpoint I traditionally support.

this is exactly what happens in every dem presidency. Indeed, there is a slew of careerists at CIA and DOJ who violate their ethical obligations, etc., to leak to the press in an effort to undermine the president's objectives. This is wrong and unethical regardless of who is president.

It is not a healthy thing when one party gets too much power.

Yeah, I remember the dems and libs arguing this in the past, when the Dems controlled the house, senate and presidency in the past. Please.

The DoJ works for the people of America, not for whatever party is in power at the time.

Ahh, you really have NO understanding of how our government works. This is factually wrong as well as theoretically wrong. the DOJ works for the executive who is elected by the electorate. The DOJ does not "work for the amereican people" except for in the abstract. Didn't you take high school civics?

RichatUF

Jane says...

So do I. Do you happen to know when the Jefferson indictment is going to be posted. I've been looking and haven't been able to find it yet.

RichatUF

RichatUF

italico

PeterUK.

"affirmed that Plame had traveled overseas within 5 years of the date of the hearing, let alone from the time her identity was revealed.

So it seems that there is at least some evidence that Plame had in fact worked abroad during the time period in question."

Traveling overseas is not the same as working abroad.

"but there is some evidence that Plame had served overseas, evidence which has neither been countered nor disproven in any fashion."

Perhaps Fitzgerald should have brought this up at the trial,how many times does he want to try Libby?

Great Banana

Sorry, italics off.

boris

points directly to the Obstruction

BS. A prosecutor desn't need the suspect to confess what they knew, just evidence that the knowledge was available. Sure seemed like Libby was convicted for "knowing about" Wilson's wife without a confession. Other people testified they told him. Nobody testified he was told she was covert.

That's why discussion with a troll is pointless. They actually believe their own ignorance and stupidity are a form of "evidence". What they don't comprehend can't possibly exist. What they can't imagine can't be an explanation.

Great Banana

I highly doubt that Fitz, an experienced prosecutor, doesn't know the law, and doesn't understand what is and isnt' appropriate for the judge to consdier when it comes to sentencing.

Ahh, fitzy said so therefore it is correct! No bias there! It's nice to see the crazy left believing in prosecutors for the first time in 100 years!!

I don't think that there is positive proof, IE, court-of-law proof, being offered that the IIPA was violated; but I do believe that there is a good amount of evidence that this is true, in the form of:

Plame's assertion that she was undercover;

Based on all of the proven lying she has done and her own civil suit - this is believable how, exactlY?

The CIA's assertion that she was undercover;

"undercover" and "covert" under the IIPA are two very distinct things, but so far your ability to understand that is questionable. I note that the CIA has flat out refused to answer specifically whether Plame was covert within the meaning of the IIPA, which is most telling to me.

The CIA's assertion that she had served overseas.

Nobody disputes that she served overseas at some point. The question is, when did she last serve overseas. I notice that nobody is willing to provide that info. Again, this is most telling, as if it had been within the 5-years required by the IIPA, such would have been provided.

I have not seen evidence to counter any of these assertions, but mere speculation that they are not true based upon accusations of lying on someone's part.

See my responses above. Your case is worse than circumstantial, it is self serving pap and would be laughed out of court. Again, probably the reason why Fitzy did not charge Armitage, or anyone else, with violating the IIPA.

Jane

"but there is some evidence that Plame had served overseas, evidence which has neither been countered nor disproven in any fashion."

It's so darn hard to prove a negative. Seems to me if madam Plame was in any way covert she would have tripped over herself to make this point. Given Fitz and her MO we can infer from their actions that nothing resembling covertness is even worth considering.

So I'm confident that Schumer was tied up somehow in this William Jefferson bribery case. I think we need a special prosecutor!!!!

lurker9876

"Fitz has stated more than once that he has determined that there were no IIPA violations.

Can you link to where he has stated this? If it really has been more then once, this should be a trivial matter."

Check the previous Plame thread. Somebody else linked those.

"[toensing] is not biased and very objective observer. Her points have been valid.

Are you serious?!? She was sitting at the Libby defense table during a good part of the trial. She is in no way whatsoever 'impartial' or objective."

So? Toensing was looking out for majority of the American Public.

"It remained an unfair trial by jury.

This is the worst and most specious of your objections; that the jury trial wasn't fair. You have no evidence other than your biased opinion to show that the jury was unable to make an accurate determination of guilt.""

There are plenty of evidence that the jury missed or chose to ignore and reached a bad decision. Their decision was based on politics only.

PeterUK.

"This Plame incident is only a small part of a much larger effort to subvert the DoJ, on the part of the Republican party who is currently in power."

This is so illogical as to be deranged.

JM Hanes

Cycloptic:

If the IIPA issue had actually been resolved, the indictment of Armitage would have been a no brainer. It's clear he wasn't flipping on anyone higher up the food chain. It's also clear that he wasn't exactly forthcoming with investigators, and that his surrogates meddled with potential witness on more than one occasion.

Since I have yet to hear anyone on the left directly address the question of why Armitage deserved to escape prosecution, perhaps you could make yourself useful and explain that to us.

While you're at it, you could explain why Armitage alone, among the "innocent accuseds," deserved Fitzgerald's zealous protection from the public spotlight which shone relentlessly on so many others who testified willingly to both investigators and grand jury. If you're up to it, you could also explain why Armitage has earned only passing condemnation instead of continuing ire from those who claim that the outing of Plame was a veritable national security disaster.


"As for Jefferson, he's a corrupt bastard and I hope he goes to prison for a long long time."

Duly noted. You are nothing if not consistent in your extra-legal convictions. If he goes on trial, I suspect that the nexus of African connections which have intrigued folks here so long may prove a real eye opener on the corruption front.

PeterUK.

"an assertion and little more than an opinion"

"Plame's assertion that she was undercover;

The CIA's assertion that she was undercover;

The CIA's assertion that she had served overseas."

Oh dear!

Cycloptichorn

This is factually wrong as well as theoretically wrong. the DOJ works for the executive who is elected by the electorate. The DOJ does not "work for the amereican people" except for in the abstract. Didn't you take high school civics?

Of course I did. And, the 'abstract' is quite important in this case.

The DoJ has a mission to: 'To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law,' per their mission statement. The 'law' is not an inherently partisan thing, but is instead supposedly an impartial tool used to maintain order within our society.

While the Executive branch manages the DoJ, they do not control the DoJ per se. The Rule of Law controls the DoJ. When politicians seek to undermine the Rule of Law for political reasons, it cannot have positive outcomes for the society as a whole.

You state that
this is exactly what happens in every dem presidency

And, it is wrong then as it is wrong now. I am not defending the actions of every past Dem presidency. Pointing to the fact that there are attempts at politicization all around does not provide evidence that there's nothign wrong with politicization, but merely affirms (which I do not argue with) that there are problems on both sides of the fence with this issue.

Boris,
You seem to be unable to rise above the level of insult to have a normal conversation. I find it to be telling that you continually turn to derision. If your argument is strong enough, such things are unecessary, as you well know.

In this case, we are discussing attempts to prove that those in the OVP knew that they were intentionally outing an agent. Without testimony that conversations such as this took place, it would be difficult to prove that this was true. This is an entirely different case then a Perjury rap, which does not rely upon revelations about priviledged conversations to garner a conviction; as you no doubt saw.

Daddy

I wish someone in the DOJ could immediately bring a charge against Armitage for violation of the IIPA in the case of Plame. Everybody knows that he did the leaking, etc. This way we could get a definitive legal decision on whether she was covert under IIPA or not. If so, then jail the b**tard. If not, then Fitz's blustering to hang Libby is vividly seen as the disengenious vendetta it is. Maybe then we could could get FITZ under oath to admit how after 4 years and X amount of millions of taxpayer bucks, he arrived as his erronious conclusion.

JM Hanes

Sue:

"I have never heard that phrase before. And I have never heard such a made-up story before."

Yeah, like Edwards would have been just sooooo uncomfortable if Elizabeth's old friend had been a real babe saying the same thing.

PeterUK.

"No such luck, Jane; I am perfectly capable of holding on dual conversations".

How interesting,where are you having them?

Appalled Moderate

Cyclo:

One of your premises regarding Fitz is completely incorrect:

You say:

First, I believe the IIPA was brought up at sentencing for the sole reason that there have been many assertions by supporters of Libby that there was 'no underlying crime' and no reason to prosecute at all. I don't really see evidence that Fitz is claiming that Libby should get a stronger sentence then he already would be facing for his Perjury and ObJustice claims, but merely that the situation is serious enough that the sentencing for these crimes should not be reduced by protestations that there were no 'underlying crimes.'

Fitz says:

Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act, pursuant to USSG é 2J1.2(c)(1), the Court must calculate defendant's offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.

The sentencing filings are at cboldt's site (click on first link under Plamaniacs). You should read the pleading -- it's not a moderate document. The problem with Fitz's approach is he is trying to sentence Fitz on having violated the IIPA or the Espionage Act without having litigated those acts in front of a jury. That should offend your sense of justice, even if you think Libby is scum.

Cycloptichorn

JM,
Since I have yet to hear anyone on the left directly address the question of why Armitage deserved to escape prosecution, perhaps you could make yourself useful and explain that to us.

I suspect that Armitage convinced Fitz that he genuinely didn't know what he was doing at the time. I also suspect that others failed to convince Fitzgerald of the same thing.

Managed to escape prosecution isn't the same thing as innocent OR guilty. I have no love for Armitage, and I suspect that many if not most on the Left do not either. It isn't as if he is a white knight in this whole thing, but is viewed mostly as a bumbling fool.

As for the Jefferson thing... I believe that it is possible to make a determination of one's opinion about guilt or innocence based upon evidence which may or may not rise to the level necessary to prove in court.

For example, I'm completely comfortable stating my opinion that OJ Simpson was in fact guilty of committing murder. Now, he was found innocent by a court of law, and so for all legal intents and purposes he did not in fact commit murder; but that doesn't change the way I feel about it.

I understand that many people feel the same way about Libby, but in reverse; and that's cool. There's nothing wrong with holding an opinion such as this. It's when the positive assertions start flying, denying that there was ever any reason to try him in the first place, that we step over the line from opinion to dishonest argumentation.

I have consistently maintained that there is some evidence showing that the IIPA was violated; enough evidence to lead me to be of the opinion that it was in fact violated. I do not make the positive claim that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was violated; that is up for the courts to decide(or not, if Libby holds firm and doesn't flip). But many have made the positive claim that there was in fact no violation, and slip into an argumentative mode which is based more upon logic then it is emotion.

Cycloptichorn

JM,
Since I have yet to hear anyone on the left directly address the question of why Armitage deserved to escape prosecution, perhaps you could make yourself useful and explain that to us.

I suspect that Armitage convinced Fitz that he genuinely didn't know what he was doing at the time. I also suspect that others failed to convince Fitzgerald of the same thing.

Managed to escape prosecution isn't the same thing as innocent OR guilty. I have no love for Armitage, and I suspect that many if not most on the Left do not either. It isn't as if he is a white knight in this whole thing, but is viewed mostly as a bumbling fool.

As for the Jefferson thing... I believe that it is possible to make a determination of one's opinion about guilt or innocence based upon evidence which may or may not rise to the level necessary to prove in court.

For example, I'm completely comfortable stating my opinion that OJ Simpson was in fact guilty of committing murder. Now, he was found innocent by a court of law, and so for all legal intents and purposes he did not in fact commit murder; but that doesn't change the way I feel about it.

I understand that many people feel the same way about Libby, but in reverse; and that's cool. There's nothing wrong with holding an opinion such as this. It's when the positive assertions start flying, denying that there was ever any reason to try him in the first place, that we step over the line from opinion to dishonest argumentation.

I have consistently maintained that there is some evidence showing that the IIPA was violated; enough evidence to lead me to be of the opinion that it was in fact violated. I do not make the positive claim that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was violated; that is up for the courts to decide(or not, if Libby holds firm and doesn't flip). But many have made the positive claim that there was in fact no violation, and slip into an argumentative mode which is based more upon emotion then it is on logic.

Lurker,
I couldn't locate the links to Fitz's affirmative statement that the IIPA had not been violated, on the last thread OR the one before that. It is entirely possible that I overlooked them, but could you be more specific in pointing out their location?

Cycloptichorn

Sorry for the double

lurker9876

"Nobody disputes that she served overseas at some point. The question is, when did she last serve overseas. I notice that nobody is willing to provide that info. Again, this is most telling, as if it had been within the 5-years required by the IIPA, such would have been provided."

Serving overseas doesn't mean that the agent is covert. According to IIPA, covert depends on whether the agent's life is in danger or not. From what I can tell so far, Plame's "serving overseas" since CIA thought Plame's life was compromised by Ames (doesn't matter whether or not this was confirmed) but what matters is CIA's action and decision. That was between 1994 and 1997. CIA probably removed Plame's covertiness according to IIPA in 1994 (or up to 1997). Thereafter, Plame's traveling overseas was probably not covert according to IIPA.

Fitz has found nothing from OVP that intentionally outed an agent according to IIPA. According to Toensing, WH clients cannot be prosecuted if they were not trained by CIA how to handle classified data and they did not have access to the annual lists containing names of covert agents. It was apparent that no one at VP office knew Plame's status and that her status was classified.

boris

Without testimony that conversations such as this took place, it would be difficult to prove that this was true

Without testimony anything is difficult to prove you idiot.

All that would be required to present evidence that Libby knew Wilson's wife was covert would be for the CIA officials who testified they told Libby about her ALSO told him she was covert or classified.

What's difficult about that? (Excpet for a troll to understand that is).

lurker9876

I don't have the time nor inclination to locate the links. It's also available in the court transcripts. Check the Miller transcripts.

Cycloptichorn

AM,
Fitz says:

Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act, pursuant to USSG é 2J1.2(c)(1), the Court must calculate defendant's offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.
The sentencing filings are at cboldt's site (click on first link under Plamaniacs). You should read the pleading -- it's not a moderate document. The problem with Fitz's approach is he is trying to sentence Fitz on having violated the IIPA or the Espionage Act without having litigated those acts in front of a jury. That should offend your sense of justice, even if you think Libby is scum.

Hmm, it depends on your interpretation of what Fitz' said. Does it mean that the court should sentence Libby based upon the violation of the IIPA, or sentence Libby based upon Obstruction of Justice in an investigation of the violation of the IIPA? It could be interpreted to mean 'Libby wasn't on trial for merely lying, but lying in order to cover up a bigger investigation, so should be punished as if his crime were serious, not frivolous as some who have written letters to the defense have claimed.'

I agree 100% that Libby was NOT convicted for violating the IIPA and his sentencing should have NOTHING to do with the IIPA at all, but merely a serious violation of his requirement to tell the truth in front of the FBI and the GJ. If it turns out that Watson gives him a more serious sentence based upon the IIPA violation ALONE, and not upon what he was actually charged with, that would be a serious miscarriage of justice! And I would vociferously oppose such an action.

SunnyDay

Jefferson was indicted by an Alexandria grand jury. Dose this mean he will be tried in Virginia instead of DC?

Enlightened

"This Plame incident is only a small part of a much larger effort to subvert the DoJ, on the part of the Republican party who is currently in power."

Uh oh - Looks like the lefties are finally figuring out that the Plame Game is flaming out.

Need that "larger effort" talking point expansion.

lurker9876

I still think that Fitz should have determined whether or not there was a IIPA violation before investigating anyone. If there was a IPPA violation, then proceed. Otherwise, stop the investigation. No one would have been charged. No one would have lied, intentionally or not. No one would have been obstructing justice.

I still don't see how Libby intentionally lied or obstructed justice. I wish that I was on that jury to force a mistrial.

PeterUK.

"I have consistently maintained that there is some evidence showing that the IIPA was violated; enough evidence to lead me to be of the opinion that it was in fact violated. I do not make the positive claim that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was violated; that is up for the courts to decide"

Maintained but not demonstrated,in the same boat as Fitzgerald on this.Just a minute,wasn't that what Fitzgerald was investigating for nearly half a decade?

lurker9876

"If it turns out that Watson gives him a more serious sentence based upon the IIPA violation ALONE, and not upon what he was actually charged with, that would be a serious miscarriage of justice! And I would vociferously oppose such an action."

In that case, I vociferously opposed Fitz's actions, decisions, and behavior right from the beginning. He should never have started the investigation. I vociferously oppose Fitz's initation of an investigation because he did a very poor job.

He also should never have focused narrowly on the VP office when those leaks came elsewhere. I vociferously oppose Fitz's narrow focus on the VP office.

Great Banana

While the Executive branch manages the DoJ, they do not control the DoJ per se.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and ignorant. The DOJ is an executive branch and, as such, is controlled by the Executive.

The Rule of Law controls the DoJ.

Really, who decides what the "rule of law is"? Who decides what the priorities are? Who decides what gets prosecuted and what doesn't? Who decides the budget for the various offices within the DOJ? This is an absurd and idiotic cliche that sounds great, but means absolutely nothing.

When politicians seek to undermine the Rule of Law for political reasons, it cannot have positive outcomes for the society as a whole.

What does "undermine the rule of law" mean? It is that glorious kind of phrase that can mean whatever the political hack bandying it about wants it to mean.

In contrast, I will agree that if a politician does something illegal, then they should be prosecuted, impeached, removed from office, etc. If they do something that "undermines the rule of law", then maybe the electorate won't vote for them next time - but this phrase is meaningless otherwise.

lurker9876

""I have consistently maintained that there is some evidence showing that the IIPA was violated; enough evidence to lead me to be of the opinion that it was in fact violated. I do not make the positive claim that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was violated; that is up for the courts to decide""

Fitz did not take this up with Walton. Fitz fought against taking this up with Walton until the sentencing phase. I vociferously oppose to Fitz's fighting against it, then introducing it in the sentencing phase to justify that Libby lied intentionally (unproven) and obstructed justice (unproven).

Cycloptichorn

I still think that Fitz should have determined whether or not there was a IIPA violation before investigating anyone. If there was a IPPA violation, then proceed. Otherwise, stop the investigation. No one would have been charged. No one would have lied, intentionally or not. No one would have been obstructing justice.

Here's the thing, though; you cannot determine intent without the investigation.

It is doubtless that it was determined early on by the CIA and the FBI that a covert operative had her cover blown. I've always thought this was the most ridiculous part of the 'there's no underlying crime!' angle; the idea that neither the FBI, the CIA, or Fitz could determine that Plame was not in fact under covert status. It was a trifling matter for them to determine that she was covert. Proving that she was intentionally outed was not a trifling matter, and it was during the course of attempting to do this that Libby lied to the GJ about his part in the outing.

I still don't see how Libby intentionally lied or obstructed justice. I wish that I was on that jury to force a mistrial.

Libby invented conversations that the jury found not to have happened, and conveniently forgot points which were damaging to his case that he did not intentionally out Plame. When the jury finds that your 'I don't remembers' are not reasonable, it is a good sign of intentional lying.

Cycloptichorn

Sigh

lurker9876

"It is doubtless that it was determined early on by the CIA and the FBI that a covert operative had her cover blown."

How is this a violation of IIPA and the other two criminal acts?

"I've always thought this was the most ridiculous part of the 'there's no underlying crime!' angle; the idea that neither the FBI, the CIA, or Fitz could determine that Plame was not in fact under covert status. It was a trifling matter for them to determine that she was covert. Proving that she was intentionally outed was not a trifling matter, and it was during the course of attempting to do this that Libby lied to the GJ about his part in the outing."

Libby did not out Plame. FBI, CIA, Fitz, Plame, and Walton still could not tell whether Plame was covert under the conditions of IIPA. How can it be a trifling matter? Libby was not charged with a crime of outing Plame under the conditions of IIPA and the other two criminal acts.

"It could be interpreted to mean 'Libby wasn't on trial for merely lying, but lying in order to cover up a bigger investigation,"

Prove it. Exactly what cover up of a bigger investigation did Libby do? Fitz did not prove this in the court.

Fitz did not prove that Libby invented conversations.

Forgot points? How is that lying? This jury apparently forgot many things, such as the discredibility of the reporters.

Show us facts this time.

Great Banana

It is doubtless that it was determined early on by the CIA and the FBI that a covert operative had her cover blown. I've always thought this was the most ridiculous part of the 'there's no underlying crime!' angle; the idea that neither the FBI, the CIA, or Fitz could determine that Plame was not in fact under covert status. It was a trifling matter for them to determine that she was covert.

Really? I have yet to see any proof that she was "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA. So, you make one untrue assertion and then move on - and keep making the same untrue assertion again and again, and base all you other arguments on that one untrue assertion. Interesting debate style.

cathyf
Just an odd little point,the two disciplines of covert agent,recruit and the like,and WMD expert are very far apart.Is it likely that any intelligence agency would risk putting a WMD expert in the field? Spies know they are expendable ,at risk of detection,which is why there are cutoffs and cell systems. Was the CIA short staffed?
Well, a lot of the time they simply seem short on brain cells when it comes to running "covert" ops. This whole story about the rendition that they did in Milan, where they were so outrageously incompetent (for example they used credit cards not traceable back to them in order to charge cars and hotels, but then put their real airline frequent flier account numbers in to make sure they got credit) that they put the Italian government in the embarassing position of not being able to avoid prosecuting them.

If Plame was in fact involved, even peripherally, in one of these 3 stooges CIA "covert" operations, one that hasn't gotten any attention, then in fact it may be true that releasing any modestly specific dates would put people's lives at risk. But, on the other hand, as others have pointed out it is very odd that the much-higher level of detail as far as dates and places that was in Joe Wilson's book hasn't seemed to cause any harm.

I have been saying for years that the evidence points to Plame being improperly paid out of the wrong budget category, and wondering just what laws there are on the books about paying for non-covert operations using funds that Congress has allocated for covert activities. But, on the other hand, given the level of incompetence which the CIA has demonstrated, we shouldn't totally discount the notion that they stuck this decidedly non-covert person in the middle of a real covert operation and it blew up on them, and that is what the CIA has been trying to hide ever since.

Great Banana

Double important sigh!!!

lurker9876

And you have not convinced me that Libby intentionally lied and obstructed justice, regardless of what the jury ended up deciding and it was a very bad decision that they came to.

Appalled Moderate

Cyclo:

The link to the filing is here:

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/2007/05/libby-sentencing-calculation-doc-349.html

To keep my comment at manageable length, I did not include the entire guideline Fitz quotes. I suggest you read it, rather than surmise you know what it says without reading it.

Jeff Dobbs

triple colon :::sigh:::

Rick Ballard

"Jefferson was indicted by an Alexandria grand jury. Dose this mean he will be tried in Virginia instead of DC?"

Good question, SD. Let's hope he's on the 'rocket docket' (although that may pertain to appeals rather than trials).

Jefferson is certainly innocent at the moment. Who knows, perhaps the videotape of him receiving the marked bills later found in his freezer was part of a Republican plot against an important Congressional Black Caucus member?

cathyf

lurker, hon, you know I love you, but when you are composing your comments, could you please use something more than quotation marks to distinguish your writings from the quotations that you are responding to? For example, italics, or use the blockquote command. You can italicize text by enclosing the text in <i></i>, or get the indenting by enclosing quotes inside <blockquote></blockquote> command.

topsecretk9

press conference on William Jefferson on now...

lurker9876

cathyf, I can try. It's harder at work. Work policies do not allow for downloads from the Internet, such as bb tags. I have it downloaded to my home computers (both XP and Linux) and use them. I try "" from work. But I will try. It would be nice if Tom could get someone to add buttons to his website that we can click on...

Rick Ballard

I question the timing.

Jeff Dobbs

I Blame Bush.

PatrickR

The pattern continues; Mark Steyn is reporting that Conrad Black's defense is asking to recall Fitzgerald's star, David Radler, in order to expose him as a perjurious witness:

Eddie Greenspan, Black's Toronto counsel, pointed out to Radler that under the Corrections Canada "one-sixth" policy he would serve only six months in his British Columbia country club - the all-time great sweetheart deal even by the disreputable standards of US plea bargains. But Radler professed all ignorance of any such arrangements: Six months? Why, first he'd heard of it.

As noted here a week ago, Greenspan then called the leading parole lawyer in Vancouver to see if he'd be available to serve as an expect witness for the defence. The lawyer said he'd love to but he had a conflict of interest: David Radler was his client.

It was never very likely that you'd hire Canada's top parole lawyer and then not ask his advice on parole terms. It now emerges that Radler has had this guy on retainer for over two-and-a-half years - ie, before he began negotiations to cop a plea with the US government.

topsecretk9

11 different fraud schemes - including bribing foreign govt. officials

that formed the RICo schemes -in countries Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Burca Faso -- sorry for spelling -- to name a few

Daddy

Legal Types, Please simplistically help me out here. Playing Devil's Advocate, if we grant Fitz's assumption that leaking Plame info was under IIPA, then why the heck isn't Fitz this very moment pursuing Rove, Armitage and their 2nd cousins etc for perpetrating the crime that Fitz was supposedly assigned to uncover? In my simplistic view, the only reason I can fathom is that there was no violation of IIPA. Otherwise I have to imagine Fitz let Rove off the hook cause he really liked and admired the man, which is beyond credibility even in Moonbat land.

topsecretk9

Jiminy -- can't wait to read this indictment

House Ethics committee about to get involved now finally - Republicans are going to take the 90 page indictment to the floor

Nepolitano says indictment it wonderfully crafted and detail in it is extraordinary and took him hour and half to read....

topsecretk9

Also...says that it is so complex and vast that he's sure this is not the end of it -- that more is sure to come up.

Rick Ballard

PatrickR,

I guess Tim Russert wasn't available to give Radler advice on how to sell perjured testimony to Fitz on the QT.

Sara

Via Talk Left:

The indictment is here.

Jeff Dobbs

tops:
Also...says that it is so complex and vast that he's sure this is not the end of it -- that more is sure to come up.

Well that can only mean one thing.

ROVE!!!!!

PeterUK.

CathyF,
Plame has always had the look of a supernumerary,arranging meetings,giving talks on WMD in Canada,perhaps counseling to staff with VP Phone Conversation Trauma and the like.
There is a trick the Civil Service here is retirement with added years for those who retire on health grounds.Trips abroad for fact finding missions is another perk,it is likely your bureaucrats have the same sort of dodges.
BTW does Canada count as overseas?

Other Tom

Many think it is a bad thing when a troll, particularly one who is not at all bright, elicits too many responses. (It's also a bad thing to have too many Martinis, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great deal of fun.)

My own policy is to respond to these dopes on slow days, and slow days only. It's also important to cherry-pick a bit about what merits a response, as it's not possible to swat every fly. I've grabbed this one, just for fun:

"It is not a healthy thing when one party gets too much power."

I suppose that means, among other things, that the New Deal, the conduct of World War II, and the Great Society were all products of an unhealthy thing. I'm not certain that I disagree, but before I comment I'd like to hear the opinion of those who would vote in the affirmative for the initial proposition.

topsecretk9

from the Presser

The official acts allegedly undertaken by Jefferson included leading official business delegations to Africa, corresponding with U.S. and foreign government officials, and utilizing congressional staff members to promote businesses and businesspersons. Business ventures that Congressman Jefferson sought to promote included: telecommunications deals in Nigeria, Ghana, and elsewhere; oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea; satellite transmission contracts in Botswana, Equatorial Guinea, and the Republic of Congo; and development of different plants and facilities in Nigeria.
JM Hanes

Cycloptic:

"I don't really see evidence that Fitz is claiming that Libby should get a stronger sentence then he already would be facing for his Perjury and ObJustice claims."

Then you obviously haven't read his Sentencing Calculations -- unless you'd like to claim you just didn't understand them. You clearly had no idea which sentencing document the Unclassified Summary was attached to either, so I'm leaning toward the former, but it's a real toss up. It's not hard to see why you find evidence so exceedingly hard to come by.

It might even explain the notable dearth of substantiating links from someone who is so quick to ask for them -- if that weren't such a classic Trolling 101 technique, of course, along with insisting that arguments be re-stated for your benefit from scratch, and marking a notch in your debating belt for every refusal to accomodate you by throwing the gears into reverse.

topsecretk9

there is some Democrat on Fox now trying to say that Nancy was so good because she immediately took Jefferson off his committee assignment and they take great swift action and Mike Gallaghar just shut her down -- that he didn't step down when the 90 grand was found is an embarrassment

I bet there will be a war in the Dem party - the Congressional Black Caucus is already marginalized by Nancy and they were just miffed and dissed over the debate

Cycloptichorn

JM Hanes,
Then you obviously haven't read his Sentencing Calculations -- unless you'd like to claim you just didn't understand them.

Oh, I'd be more inclined to claim I didn't fully understand them. I suspect that this is in part because I have a hard time believing that Fitzgerald would be proposing a stronger sentence then was actually allowed by law for Libby's convicted crimes; and also have a hard time believing that Walton would sentence Libby for crimes he wasn't convicted of committing. None of that makes any logical sense to me.

I really don't understand why it's neccessary to insult. I don't insult you or others here. The definition of trolling usually doesn't include people who merely have differing opinions from yours. For the record, the insults are immaterial to me; they affect neither my intention to continue posting nor my determination to keep the conversation about the law and politics, where there are a wide variety of opinions that can be expressed without necessarily referring to others in derogatory terms.

I suppose that means, among other things, that the New Deal, the conduct of World War II, and the Great Society were all products of an unhealthy thing. I'm not certain that I disagree, but before I comment I'd like to hear the opinion of those who would vote in the affirmative for the initial proposition.

Yes, I do believe that these programs - policies put in place during a time when one party had a disproportionate amount of political power - were products of an 'unhealthy thing.' Note that they are powerful, and in many cases quite succesful; the fact that every now and then a group which has too much power, makes a good decision, doesn't invalidate my earlier opinion.

The 'great society' for example is questionable. Just because I am a Liberal doesn't mean that I blindly support all Liberals, or all Liberal programs, or everything that has gone on in the past. The measured and careful path usually is the best one for the country, and there isn't much measure or care invovled when there are no breaks on politicians from either party.

PeterUK.

Tops,
Uranium mines in the Congo

windansea

Jeff has a post on TM's post at FDL

the end of his post:

Now, Tom can rest his new defense on the notion that this was in a different legal context from the one we are considering now, and in fact it could be either that the judge smacks down Fitzgerald's efforts to introduce the notion of a possible underlying IIPA violation at this stage, or forces Fitzgerald to produce some proof of his assertion that Plame was covert under the IIPA. But by that very token, the notion that Fitzgerald proceeded in bad faith earlier falls apart, as does the notion that Fitzgerald did not reach the conclusion that Plame was covert in good faith.

But it is a notion we may hear about at tomorrow's hearing, since, though Maguire is not himself a part of the vast Libby defense empire, he asked one of his frequent commenters, Clarice Feldman, who is a lawyer and the "chief investigative correspondent" for the American Thinker, to convey the information to Libby's defense, which she is evidently advising or at least in touch with.

Or maybe not. Because in fact, in going around this bend and embracing the idea that Valerie Plame Wilson's pension calculations contain the key to determining whether she was covert or not, Maguire seems to have completely abandoned both the defense's position and the position held by Toensing, Thompson, the WSJ editorial page and many others. The defense position is that Plame would need to have been "stationed" abroad. Similarly, Toensing et al claim that Plame would have to have some kind of permanent assignment abroad. But now Tom is telling us that Valerie Plame's pension benefits track her service abroad.

topsecretk9

PUK - I know. I can't wait to read the indictment.

Nancy speaks - she says the charges against Jefferson are serious but reminds us that Jefferson is a citizen and innocent until proven guilty -- AH!

She didn't call for his resignation - so I guess it's safe bet she is working on re-instating his committee assignments and looking for even more prestigious spots for Dollar Bill.

windansea

Scary Fat Larry also slams TM
at NoQuarter

I received the following message today from one Tom Maguire, who is a self-proclaimed "Plameologist". I never cease to be amazed at the chutzpah of some folks who lack experience and knowledge, but insist they have the grasp of secrets that folks who have actually worked on the issues do not. Maguire is at the head of the class in this regard. This clown has never worked at the CIA in any capacity, he has never held a security clearance, he's never been a prosecuting attorney, but he insists he is qualified to judge whether Valerie was undercover.

My initial urge is to wonder if Maguire is retarded. But that would be an insult to the mentally disabled. Just because there is "no mention" in the unclassified summary, Maguire leaps to the conclusion that Patrick Fitzgerald is just making shit up. Let's start with the term, "summary". A summary is not a complete record. A summary highlights critical points. Here is another so-called "possibility" that apparently eluded the dull mind of the twit Maguire--the CIA did not mention Val's time overseas prior to January 2002 because it still insists that Valerie's cover remains intact and cannot be lifted. Since the CIA was giving Fitzgerald an unclassified summary it could not include classified information. If I'm going too fast here, just speak up.

Tom, you moron! You wouldn't recognize water in a swimming pool if you were chained to the bottom (which, come to think of it is a nifty idea).

I call for a 3 way mud wrestling contest

clarice

H & R and Rick--very funny guys, but Jeff is funniest still.TM asked us all to get the word out..knowing the email of a friend of a friend is hardly being in their camp, Jeff.

clarice

Fox is reporting the Jefferson trial will be in rocket docket Alexandria , Va.

PeterUK.

"the CIA did not mention Val's time overseas prior to January 2002 because it still insists that Valerie's cover remains intact and cannot be lifted."

Chubby Larry never ceases to amaze,the fact that Valerie Plame has had her picture splashed across the world's media,when that happened her "cover" and her connections were well and truly blown,if they ever existed.Doesn't seem to penetrate Chubby's analist's mind,but then again Mr Larry "9/10 No Threats to America" Johnson,didn't last long at the CIA did he?

topsecretk9

-- but Jeff is funniest still.TM asked us all to get the word out..knowing the email of a friend of a friend is hardly being in their camp, Jeff.v--

as if Emptyhead isn't in constant contact with the truth-challenged Wilson's.

Snore.

topsecretk9

Larry--I never cease to be amazed at the chutzpah of some folks who lack experience and knowledge--

sounds like his CIA career.

MikeS

Whoa dude! I think I detect a slightly saracatic tone in Larry's post.

MikeS

Sarcatic, thas wes coast for "sarcastic" nomsain?

cathyf

You know, yesterday somebody brought up something that I appreciated "as if for the first time." Which is that Joe Wilson's book and the Vanity Fair article both contained some pretty specific information about Plame's mid-90's activities. Places -- London, Brussels; schools -- LSE, College of Europe. But no one has ever managed to find anybody out there who was in London or Brussels at those times and stumbled across her. Nobody has ever come across a landlord, or somebody who sat next to her in class, or a student worker in a registrar's office who filched a copy of her transcript and sent it around the internet. In these times, lack of some sort of odd corroborating evidence is just suspicious. How much of this stuff is lies, anyway?

Enlightened

Whassamatter - Fat Larry to scared to debate Tom on JOM? Thinks his big brain is too good for us?

I bet his sock puppets will be arriving shortly -

PeterUK.

Cargtf,
If there is nothing on Friends Re-united,it was either scrubbed or she didn't have any.

windansea

saracatic: a combination of Socratic debate heavily laced with sarcasm

SunnyDay

Rocket Docket:

In one legendary story, lawyers say a defense lawyer who was not prepared to give opening arguments on the first day of a trial told [the judge] that the lawyer who was prepared would arrive shortly -- as soon as his plane landed from New York.

"Call your first witness," the judge told the hapless lawyer.

hoosierhoops

I am deeply sorry to all the JOM bloggers from my blog last night..There is no excuse for writing while drunk and I am deeply sorry...I awoke from the worst hangover and told my wife I was an as*hole. There is no excuse from any bravado on my part...
It won't happen again. I have felt horrible about it all day so mea cupa..

Rick Ballard

Tops,

I'm 30 pages into the Jefferson indictment and I would suggest that the ExIm Bank and the tenure of one James A. Harmon is worth a spin on a connect the dots basis. The Honorable Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Lousiana, USA seems to have had a pipeline into Ex-Im that provided the funds for the bribes he alledgedly received.

Wonder if Munchie knew someone at Ex-Im? That would be a contact worth peddling, wouldn't it?

clarice

That is odd, Cathy. Why should one suppose these serial liars told the truth to VF when we know they lied to everyone else? We do know the claim in VF that Alan Foley was her boss was denied by him in an email to me.

clarice

Well, Rick, what's to prevent us from asking the relevant officials at the Ex-Im Bank if they have yet conducted an investigation into transactions they funded in which Jefferson was involved, and if not, do they intend to?

eximAfrica@exim.gov

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame