Redstate

We have the facts on our side.  The law is pretty much on our side here.

Let's not fly off the handle (again).

You're right on this one.

The only thing I've been careful to point out whenever it is raised as "Fitzgerald is a Republican" - he actually was a registered Independent, but when he found out there was an "Independence" Party, he switched to No Affiliation.  I think we have to be consistent though, and any indictments against Rove / Libby mean they should resign.

When would it be "ok" NOT to resign, if one is

carelessly indicted, and "innocent" until etc. etc.

influence and intelligence on important issues affecting this country as Kim Jong Il has in running a democracy. Zippo..the loud mouth talks too much trash anyway and cares more about hearing himself talk..just like his partner in crime O'Reilly. The less Republicans and Democrats (note to Sharpton and the like) listen the better off we are

Everything I've read about the man, it would be completely out of character for him to push "careless" indictments against the "innocent" - at this point, it would probably be best in the long run for anyone radioactive in the West Wing to be shown the door - or is that just because I was watching "The West Wing" last night??

Seriously, we have only a few more days to wait - if the indictments are patently laughable, then I say we attack - otherwise, even Karl Rove is not that valuable.  Besides, we will have so many people finally agreeing with us the perjury and obstruction of justice is a bad thing  ; )

Republicans can readily and rightfully argue that the criminalization of the political must end.

While I agree that the political must not be criminalized, this is a problem ENTIRELY of the Republican Party's own doing.  

If someone is indicted for lying to a Grand Jury how is it ANY different than the Clinton fiasco?  I won't get into saying which is better/worse myself but you can't get on your high horse and tsk tsk this after several years of doing this EXACT THING!

The independent counsel statute predates Bill Clinton.

FYI.

One important distinction between Fitzgerald and Starr is that Fitzgerald has run a mostly leak-free investigation.  This is in contrast to Starr, who liked to steadily leak all sorts of info to stay in the news and do continual damage to Clinton's reputation.  

There is a difference, if there is no crime underlying the perjury indictments, then is pure phishing.  Clinton had the problem that crimes were committed.

I think it was on Bozell's site. But someone made the point that what some conservatives fear is this: even with all the facts and the law on our side, we will still lose the battle, because it's not being fought with facts, law, and arguments. It's being fought with frames, memes and images. I feel myself objecting to this very point with the rejoinder: "Americans aren't as stupid as you think." And yet, advertising works (I know that from the inside of the game.)

How many of you have talked with "moderate" or "independent" people (by which I mean people who are not obsessed with politics), and heard them say: "Well, DeLay has only been indicted. He deserves a fair trial, and if he is exonerated, then everything goes back to the way it was. Same applies to Rove and Scooter."

I haven't heard anyone talk this way except us right-wingers. I fear (and I strongly invite rejoinders) that the perception of systemic malfeasance by Republicans is being planted willfully, and is slowly taking root through repetition.

But, as you say, if "patently laughable",

someone's "feelings" need to be considerably adjusted, and I would hope in a most politically incorrect way. With brass knuckles.

It's already happening. Dean is running around saying the entire Iraq war is based on "a lie". He's already trying to tie the Plame affair to the legitimacy of the war from the beginning. This is the meme they will be using over and over through next year. You've seen the tactic this month with the "culture of corruption" meme.

The first thing that amazes me is how stupid do you have to be to not know if the possibility of a crime existed before agreeing to a special prosecutor.  Who was the White House council?  I mean it is obvious that this is a fight between the administration and bureaucratic liberals in the CIA.  And it is equally obvious that no "outing" could have taken place in this instance.  A good lawyer could figure this out in a few days with no outside information.  So what the hell?  It makes no sense.  

But, here is the nice lining to the cloud of doom.  If indictments come down, the investigation goes public.  Maybe we can do the nation some good and finally clean out the closet of bungled foreign intelligence at the CIA.  As far as Hannity beginning the attack, he is probably smelling the tea leaves and wants to have some of the real estate when it comes time to label the investigation a witch hunt.  What really needs to be investigated is Wilson.  Did he sign a confidentiality contract with the CIA?  If so, then he clearly broke the law in his oped.  If he didn't, then how was it even a investigation?  Does the CIA now just send people on vacation with no accountability, and free reign?  The whole scenario sounds like a set up.

be better if proved first?

The investigation into whether George H.W. Bush employed a Blackbird aircraft to fly to Iran to negotiate the release of hostages to damage Carter's re-election chances?

Have you forgotten the ancillary investigations to Iran-Contra?

Both sides have been doing this for some time.  Blaming the GOP entirely is short sighted and wrong.

Not sure what you're saying.  Are you suggesting that if no perjury occurre then it is pure phishing or are you suggesting that if the the investigation itself finds no crime, then the perjury is pure phishing?  

Interesting standard.  I bet that Martha Stewart would have liked to have known about that one.

As for Clinton what was the crime that was committed pre-perjury?

I think they did up the ante though just like the Democrats did with Thomas and Bork.  

Appears to me as thought the CIA was trying to destabilize a government & institute a little regime change.

Can I get a few indictments in the CIA for treason for Fitzmas?

Your use of the word "entirely" confused me.

I fail to see the relevance of this point.  

Are you suggesting that the IC wasn't used as a political weapon?  Cause if it wasn't, why did they let the office expire?

A crime was commited?

I must have misread "ENTIRELY" as well  ; )

This is an interesting game of cat and mouse we're playing here.  On the one hand you guys are trying to argue that this is no big deal, eventhough we know nothing right now, and on the other you are asking me for proof of allegations I'm not making.

IF an indictment comes down we can then go back to our virutal political corners and come out with the proper political posturing.  Sound good?

that was an overstatement.  I knee-jerked a bit when I saw blanton try to grab the high ground on this sort of thing.

when it's in all caps.

Basic grammar, people.

. . .caution is in order, but with the rumblings that Fitzgerald has been poking around in the whole situation with the forged documents, suspicion is definitely in order.  If Fitzgerald has decided to open up "October Surprise--the GWB Edition" under the cover of his powers as independent counsel, then we should make war on him with all of the resources at our disposal, as he is abusing his authority.

Oh--and bringing up the Miers nomination in this context?  Weak--very weak.  Not to mention irrelevant.

Unless I misremember, perjury was Clinton's crime.  The underlying offense was adultery, which AFAIK is not a criminal act, at least in the jurisdiction in question.

Did I miss something?

Is that something like the "Re-elect Gore" meme that the Dems were running around spreading in 2002?

They used it as a political weapon for nearly twenty years, and fought tooth and nail to support its constitutionality when it went before the Supreme Court. It only expired because everyone decided that it was a weapon that should be left aside, to spare us needless CNN specials.

If you have any evidence, as opposed to pure speculation, sure.

people listening to you every night.

I started this topic in a separate diary (maybe the two can be combined?), but the first attack on Fitzgerald in the press has already emerged today in the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/358657p-305630c.html

"He's a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by God to do very important things," one White House ally said, referring to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald."

My friends, it has begun.

Fitzgerald has been given every power of the Attorney General on this matter - if he uncovered something serious, we should just be grateful it was not an October Surprise right before, you know, the national election (last year or next).

I needed something to break the tension of this wait - it's almost as bad as November / December 2000 - if both Bush and Cheney are indicted, we've got major problems, you know?

The Starr investigation did identify and prosecute, and convict, based on real crimes that were committed.  Clinton was caught during the investigation.  Now he didn't actually come under indictment for any of the investigations original motivations.  But there was no doubt about the validity of the investigation itself.  

As for Plamegate, it should have never become an issue.  If you still believe that a crime could have been committed, you need to investigate further.  It is virtually impossible unless the CIA has completely disintegrated.  Now if they did perjure themselves, or obstruct Justice, fine.  But it becomes suspect, just as Martha was screwed by jealousy.

If I understand you correctly, your contention is that there is, and was, no basis for suspecting criminal activity, that this should have been apparent to all parties, and that a grand jury should never have been convened.

Do I have that right?

Thanks -

An un-named source purporting to be a WH ally to the NYDN?

I could just as easily tell you that 'former Hill staffers close to the White House confirmed today that it is possible that Harriet Miers will be withdrawn if indictments come down.'

See, I didn't lie in that once, but I just made it up.

Anonymous sources do not equal republican smearing of a decent man.  Give me evidence of any credible republican condemning him before hand and I'll join you in asking them to knock it off.

You have to help me out here, I'm a little dense. Was this not the title of your post? What crime are you talking about, specifically? Did you actually mean to say, "I believe that a crime was committed," or perhaps even "I have it on incontrovertible authority that a crime was committed"?

Or were you making a rhetorical point, not intended to be subjected to analysis?

Can we get a outed CIA operative here?  Making accusations about the destabilization of America.  Clearly violating their mandate of no operations on American soil.  They obviously have a propaganda campaign of CYA on WMD being waged on American soil!  Someone should step forward.  There is a multimillion  book deal for the first taker.  Besides, isn't Goss holed up in the upper offices with the drawbridge up and the moat filled?  Its time for change at the top!

Tenet got a free pass with his lame "take some of the blame".  Bet he has some insurance...  Would be nice to know what that is.

The really evil conservative side of me wants indictments to come down, just so we can get a public investigation of this juicy entertaining sideshow.  Don't you want to know who really called for the investigation?  How about Novaks actual source?  Judy's hidden sources as well.  She went to jail to protect them, and won't even reveal to her own paper!  All good stuff.

A couple of wild ifs here. If this series of events in Plamequiddick results in only a perjury charge or conviction, does that vindicate Judge Starr? If so, should that vindication be rewarded with his nomination to the SCOTUS?

If Judge Starr should be condemned or admonished for the various alleged leaks from his staff, should the Clinton WH have been condemned or admonished for its leaks and political handling of the Starr investigation? Is there anything remotely similar in the handling of either the present investigation or the WH reaction to it?

To carry the analogies to the extreme, who is Joe Wilson akin to - Linda Tripp? Will John Goodman hilariously mock him on SNL?

Just wondering.

I think that you are probably right.  What we're really talking about here is a sort of symbolic warfare a l'Affaire Dreyfuss or the Lewinsky Scandal.  The actual issue -- legitimate or not -- gets lost as the usual suspects arm themselves with what pieces of the story are most useful to them and prepare to do battle.

The real danger for the Bush Administration is that the "mythology" surrounding the Fitzgerald investigation will move beyond prosecuting a few functionaries for perjory.  The danger is that the investigation becomes a symbol of something else, in the same way that Watergate really wasn't about a break-in, but about the public's frustration with Nixon's handling of the Vietnam War.

The Lewinsky Affair didn't stick on Clinton.  This wasn't because he didn't do anything wrong.  It's because the country lacked a strong, contentious issue where the scandal could have been perceived as a metaphor for other problems.

One one side, either the CIA knew she was not covered by the statutes, or was stupidly hopeful.  On the other side, the White House either knew there was no crime committed, or was stupid.  Third, both sides are stupid.  

Now if it comes out that the CIA honestly called for the investigation, which seems impossible, and thought she was covered by the statutes rehashed elsewhere, they are a complete mess.  There is no crime available here.  

Just as incredibly stupid is the Administration agreeing to a special prosecutor.  How can they not have information on the issue?  Especially as it was  so easy for others to figure out.

Much like your use of the word "entirely" in a later comment, your use of the phrase "well a crime has been commited" led me to believe you thought a crime had been commited.  My bad.

Wake me when Hannity indicts OBL.  Or when Hannity earns the respect of folks like Ron Safer, who helped put away the top leadership of the Ganger Disciples for life.  

Hannity couldn't shine Fitzgerald's shoes.  

begin to talk about "making war" on Fitzgerald until he crosses that line, Scott.  And, even then, I'd be very, very cautious.  Fitzgerald is very highly regarded.

You've just made the Lukoff case. I don't think I entirely buy it because not all of America is simmering with discontent over the war effort.

However I do think, and this will effectively get to agreement with your point, that the steady drumbeat of compelling images and passionately expressed memes will actually work against us. Against this background of almost mythical "truth," facts don't have much of a chance. I don't actually believe most people think with their whole brain. Is that a craven and rotten thing to say? I'm afraid it is, but I still believe it.

You mentioned the Dreyfus Affair. Did you actually intend to bring in the connotations from that horrible episode? Because I think they favor the Republicans.

and the original poster's claim that crime(s) had been committed by Clinton.

Comey picked Fitzgerald to lead the investigation when Ashcroft recused himself.  I think if you review the transcript of the press conference given by Comey when he announced all of this, you'll see that Fitzgerald was given an extremely broad mandate, and was in fact tasked with following the facts wherever they led.  If you don't want to read the whole thing, just search for "mandate".  This press conference is from December 30, 2003.

Early in the investigation, Fitzgerald requested and received written confirmation from Comey that he had the authority to follow the investigation in whatever directions he thought worthwhile.

To make a long story short, Fitzgerald appears to have been given the mandate, from the very beginning, to follow his investigation in whatever direction it led him.  If he's broadening the scope of his investigation to include the document forgeries, it's likely that it is not an abuse of his authority.

The general consensus on Fitzgerald is that he's not a political guy.  If his work is leading him into areas that will be embarrassing for the President, it's unlikely that he's doing so for partisan reasons.  If you want to "make war" on him, I guess that's your prerogative, but I don't think you have much of a basis for doing so.

In any case, we'll all see where this is going soon enough.

No ...

I meant nothing regarding the Dreyfus Affair, except to give an example of a political scandal that captured the public attention in a very strong way and came to mean much more than it originally did.

It was also based on a mendacious pack of filthy lies which took root as incontrovertible truth through constant repetition by trusted commentators.

Maybe my memory on the subject is fogy but didn't Clinton lie about Monica Lewinsky in reguards to the Paula Jones case? Clinton was never convicted of sexual harrassment so what crimes are we talking about here?

As far as I know, Clinton was never convicted of any crimes so we have the exact same situation unfolding.

if the only crimes charged are related to the investigation itself-perjury, obstruction of justice, where no crime is is at the base (ie the outing of Plame) I wouldn't be surprised to see the jury not bite on it, even if they think he is guilty.

That said, if they committed crimes, they committed crimes, and should be punished accordingly, but it doesn't sit well with me, if the only crimes charged are along the lines of perjury.  Sort gives me the witch hunt feel-the whole "I have been investigating for two years, and I have to indict somebody, and this is the best I can do" feeling.

Tom DeFrank has a long (positive) history with Cheney.  While it may have cooled off lately, DeFrank is not a liberal shill and when he starts writing articles like this, it is time to take notice.

suit.

He didn't perjure himself to Starr, he perjured himself in a deposition that was being taken by Jones' attornies.

They asked about Monica, he denied it in the deposition.  He was obviously lying, and was caught.  His perjury wasn't to cover up a crime, but to basically lie to prevent the Jones attornies from establishing a pattern of behavior type charge.

Starr was given the job of investigating the perjury, because he was already investigating a myriad of other charges, that never really reached Clinton, but did result in prosecuations and convictions of some who were around him.  But Clinton's perjury charge had nothing to do with these crimes.

Also, Clinton did end up pleading to the perjury charge, was given a nice slap on the wrist, and I believe was disbarred.

to agree to a special prosecutor in this case.

Just because with the secrecy involved, giving the dems the ability to shout cover-up just wasn't going to fly.

I am really struggling to see any crime here though, given the facts that we know.  I realize that there may be some fact regarding Plames service in the CIA that we are unaware of, but I am just not seeing how it fits that statute.

I have seen reference to the espionage statute, but that one doesn't seem to fit either, and honestly that one seems to expose Plame and Wilson as much as Rover or Libby.

Years ago I defended Ken Starr on the same logic. It's not right to attack a man for doing his job.

although in Starr's defense, the leaks may not have been from him, although I think he should have taken a more active role in stopping them.

But also Starr was investigating a myriad of crimes that occurred at various times and places, and probably had a lot more staff working the cases and in multiple states.

Fitzgerald's investigation is pretty much centered in DC, and he is only investigating the possible crimes related to the Plame affair.  It is probably easier to control the information.

Also, I think the Clinton's were also happy leakers, and we were getting leaks from all sides during that investigation.

But at least to date, Fitzgerald seems to have run a clean investigation, and has kept a tight reign on the control of information.

has taught us, it is to not trust unnamed sources.

Honestly at this point, if the source doesn't have a name and position attached to it, I take it with a very large grain of salt.

...is a funny thing.  You tend not to do it unless you are protecting yourself against something.  Maybe impeachment was a bit much as punishments go for lying, but Clinton lied and should have been punished for it.  In the same way, whether the underlying charges stick or not, if it can be demonstrated that you lied to a grand jury, you need to get punished.  This is for a number of reasons:

1. If you lied, it was probably to protect yourself in some way.  You most likely did something wrong, a la Clinton.
   
2. If we don't punish people who lie to the people who are investigating them, then anyone who does commit a crime will feel perfectly comfortable lying through their teeth, hoping that they do not get indicted on the underlying issues.  Because, hey...if they can't pin the underlying stuff, you're in the clear.

Obviously, none of us really know the facts on this one.  Depending on which blogs you read, you will fully believe either the best or worst about the administration.  It's fun to think about what might or might not happen.  But on the issue of lying and obstruction of justice, you have to wonder why someone would open themselves to that if they honestly believed they had done nothing wrong.  I say, if they get indicted (and more importantly, of course, convicted), they deserve whatever punishment is handed down.

. . .talk all over the place about all of the other rumors about what Fitzgerald is up to, I do not feel out of line in saying how I will react if Fitzgerald turns out to have been calling plays from dKos' book.  Judge Walsh was "well-regarded" before he went off the deep end, too.  If the shoe doesn't fit, then fine--but if he's drifted into puppet-molester territory by barging into the policymaking runup to the war, then it's open season on thunderous criticism of him as far as I'm concerned.

I just gave myself a refresher course with the info available on Wikipedia.  Seems to roughly be as I remember it, but will double-check later with some other sources to see ...  For others who are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

punishment, if convicted.

Although I think if there is a perjury charge, and they go to trial, that it is going to be a heck of a lot harder to prove than Clinton's perjury charge.

For one thing, the reporters were treated with kid gloves for the most part.  Russert was permitted to testify on to what he was told by Libby, not what he told anyone else, and his testimony was also restricted to the conversation with Libby as part of his deal to testify.

Also, apparantly Miller's problem other than the Libby thing, was that she also wanted the scope of the questioning limited.

When it comes time for a trial, these reporters aren't going to be able to limit the scope of their testimony, and any defense lawyer worth his salt is going to go after these witnessess.

I just don't see perjury in this case easy to prove, especially if there isn't actually what the jury sees as a real crime (ie if Fitzgerald decides that there wasn't a crime related to the release of Plame's name, the jury may nullify on the perjury oriented charges).

Well let's see, as I remember the history, the Dreyfus accusations evoked a spasm of rabid anti-Semitism. For a brief moment, it was suddenly respectable in Paris to say the most reprehensible things about Jews. That much is concordant with your  interesting suggestion about the receptivity of today's Americans to accept and internalize memes like "the culture of corruption."

However, Dreyfus was falsely accused. That didn't stop the French from indulging in anti-Semitism. If DeLay is exonerated and if Scooter and Rove are not indicted, and if Bush is not impeached, it still might not matter.

was the perjury charge, which he actually pled guilty to, once he left office.  He was fined and disbarred.

And his lie was in regards to the sexual harrassement suit, which also wasn't a crime, it was a civil suit filed by Paula Jones.

There were several other crimes, but Starr never connected them up to Clinton, although he did file charges and get convictions for several of the crimes he was investigating.

But the impeachment was over the perjury, which was committed during a deposition being taken by Jones' attornies.

He tried to maintain he was truthful, but the blue dress found him out, and he had to plead.

But in general I would say the issues are similar.  Many people defended Clinton by saying that perjury in this case was justified and that Clinton shouldn't have been impeached or charged with the crime.

I think the dems have just as much a problem crowing about a perjury charge as any defenders might have in trying to defend Rove or Libby against perjury.  In the end anyone who supports one perjury, but attacks the other is going to have some problems with hypocrisy.

I'm glad and respect the fact that you are willing to condemn the personal attacks on Fitzgerald should they occur.

Of course, as is often the case, when operatives are looking to damage someone politically or call into question another person's character, they generally do it on background. That's how the political game is played.

But as for the anonymous source issue, I'll leave that to another diary to debate. I don't particularly care to debate sourcing in this diary.

I'm much more interested in whether folks on both the Right and Left are willing to take a stand against personal attacks and slurs against the Special Prosecutor.

They had a choice, just no cahones.  They have always had a choice of going on the attack over some of these issues, but that is not how Bush operates.  No open attack.  Not that he's a pansy, but sometimes you have to fight propaganda with propaganda.  Oh well, its moot now.

As per the espionage statue, probably can't get anything there.  Seems to need motive, even though the act was committed. Good luck.  But what about disclosure of secret information?  Breach of contract?  Conspiracy under the Hatch act?  I mean Wilson did become J efn. K's foreign policy adviser.  There is a whole plethora of things to investigate.  I think the Administration should call for a special prosecutor to look into it.  But thats not how Bush operates.  More and more they look like political dinosaurs.  Look at the insight over the Meirs nomination.  We want our position debated, and we believe we are right.  No need to hide your conservatism.  So why not fight these legal political battles with fire?  

Another weird feature was that Bill actually benefited to a certain extent as Starr's investigation wandered all over the place. In a bizarre sense, the more investigations, witnesses called, evidence discovered, and convictions obtained, the more Bill seemed OK as long as it didn't get to him.

Starr was certainly effective, and the time and scope of his work left him open to both a coordininated political attack, and leaks from all over, inside, outside, who knows where.

Fitzgerald has been limited in many ways that Starr was not. If charges come down, it will be interesting to compare and contrast the numbers of witnesses, volume of production and so on to Starr.

I suspect it may be in the lore of history that Starr is recalled with this impression, but it may be simply because there was so much "reasonable cause" surrounding the Clinton WH and preceding works. Fitzgerald looks disciplined by comparison, but it may be a faulty comparison.

One as per the previous comment.  This is the Evil nature of the Grand Jury.  You have no counsel.  You appear multiple times.  You don't disclose something you forgot about.  Then evidence shows you doing something...  Even if you say, "Oh yeah, no problem, I forgot!"  You could be screwed.  So I can not agree entirely.  

Now I agree the perjury will be tough, but what about the obstruction?  Very hard to defend if the time line goes against them.  Although its pure speculation.  I think he will avoid indictments that involve Wilson in any way though.  I'll put money on that...  He would destroy the case.

how could you know if the indictments are laughable, the prosecutor doesting release the logic or evidence behind the indictment, they only release the charges.

How can some one with unlimited resources, spend 2 years investigating a relatively uncomplicated affair, and then manage to create indictments 2 days before his GJ expires? On the other hand, how can he not?

I have worked in the trenches of political campaigns and have seen the Democratic armies up close. They will stop at nothing to retain power. We have seen investigations into one effective Republican after another; Rush Limbaugh, Schwarzenegger, DeLay, Rove, even Frist. This is why we are having so much trouble recruiting Republican candidates for 2006. Who want's to be the target of a bogus investigation? They can't win at the ballot box with their toxic domestic and foreign policies so now the Dems are going to seize the country by indictment. If anybody in the White House is indicted, the lynch mobs will gather to impeach Bush next.

The coup d'etat has begun. God save America.

You're somewhat correct.  Watergate was not primarily about a break-in, although the break-in at the DNC offices was the event that precipitated the investigation.

What Watergate was about was the engagement of the President's staff, with his knowledge and approval, in criminal activities against his political opponents.  Nixon's handling of Vietnam was, at most, a somewhat peripheral issue.

Watergate was about people at the highest levels of the executive branch of the US government engaging in systematic violation of the law.  There was nothing symbolic about it, and it was not a surrogate for any other conflict.  There was more than enough in it, on its own terms, to merit both the investigation that ensued, and the punishments that were meted out as a result.

I think if there is no primary crime, this case has jury nullification written all over it.

Obstruction of justice-sorry but I am struggling to see a jury willing to convict on this one, if Fitzgerald doesn't file any charges related to the Plame stuff, if the only charge is obstruction of justice-most lay people in the jury are going to be thinking "what justice were they obstructing, there wasn't any crime other than this one?"

Now there is likely evidence we are unaware of, so my opinion is based on only what I have seen, and what has been leaked, but if the only charges related to this one are perjury or obstruction charges, and there is no indictment on the Plame stuff-I just think the jury is going to have a hard time seeing enough crime there to convict, even if technically there is a crime.

And in a trial the defense is going to get to cross examine all those reporters, and they aren't going to get to make deals to limit their testimony like they did with the grand jury testimony-a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be tough, if the reporters start clamming up under defense questioning.

I in general think the reporters got a pretty soft ride in all this, but that ride will quickly get a lot rougher, under cross examination in a jury trial.

perjury must be a material lie...

im sure if there are indictments for perjury it will be because Fitzgerald believes a crime was committed but is unsure of a conviction on the underlying crime, but knows he can get conviction on the perjury charges.

Because we have ample evidence of the Left's unwillingness to smear Special Prosecutors. They just leave them alone and let them do their business.

Take your sanctimoniousness elsewhere, I ain't buying.

 The MSM keeps refering to V. Plame as a covert or undercover agent. Like they think that she was a female James Bond. 008? 009? They've given you a number and taken way your name? If anything like this is true - I say let whoever "outed" her pay the price. But, as near as I have been able to tell she has been a "deskbound 8 to 5 paper pusher" like most CIA employees for the last 5 plus years. Was she even a real covert agent befor that? By that I mean a REAL covert agent, not along the lines of a J Fing Kerry "war hero" with his 3 purple hearts for little ouchies. Or his silver star for shooting civilains. What covert operations was she involed in? What was her role? What was the outcome? Was she suppose to be the bottle blond women going unnoticed in the middle east? Yah, I know, it's all probably secret, just like Kerry's Cambodian secret missions. In short, I really doubt that she was ever anymore a covert agent than I was. Am I right, wrong???

Fair enough.

I'll put you down on the list as not condemning the personal attacks of the Special Prosecutor.

The Dems did it before, so it's ok now too.

Sounds good.

and as I said, I see jury nullification on this one-I just don't see a jury biting on this, if there is no underlying charge made with regard to the Plame stuff.

I have been pondering why a perjury or obstruction charge on this bothers me more than Clinton's perjury charge, and I think it centers on this:

Clinton knew what he was being accused of, when he showed up for the deposition in the Jones case.  He understood that the lawyers were also seeking to establish a pattern of behavior charge.  He was fully aware of the case Jones' attornies were trying to build.  He also had his attorney present and in the room with him to advise him.

Rove and Libby on the other hand weren't fully aware of what charges Fitzgerald was delving into (his scope was pretty broad).  They also weren't aware of whether or not they were targets, they were subpeonad in the case, but received no "target" letter, although they were told that anything they said could be grounds for charges.  They weren't permitted to have their attornies in the room. It sort of is basically the prosecutor setting them up.

The situation for Clinton was far more clear, than it is for Rove and Libby.

That said, if they are charged and convincted I don't think they deserve a "they don't deserve to go to jail" defense, but I admit that I am just not keen on a perjury or obstruction charge, if Fitzgerald can't indict on any crime related to the Plame stuff, and given my discomfort with it, I can see a jury being equally uncomfortable.

I just think a perjury or obstruction indictment is going to be a tough one to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and I am just not convinced a jury is going to head down that road with him, if they are the only indictments that result from the case.  They might, but it is going to be a tough one.

to put it in a nutshell, if Rove, etal are indicted without the original charges, there was no crime other than their arguably, plausibley either mistakes made over 2 years OR their difference in recollection with journalists.

Clinton was not about sex, but about lying to protect HIS cronies, of which several (Susan McDougal, Jim McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker, Webb Hubbell) served and are serving time for felonies.  Is it coming back now?

Rove etc allegedly hiding facts from a non-crime, Clinton protecting felons.  Hmmmm....

Heres the article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200510240847.asp

If they both were aware of the situation regarding the secret memo circulated about Wilson's wife recommending him, and had communication about such that was recorded before the obvious confirmation talks with reporters, and then both failed to inform the GJ, Fitz could create something with obstruction.  But this plays into what you said, Wilson comes up, and he is not what any prosecutor wants in front of a real jury.  So he must have heavier evidence, or he is confident that the circus show will be destructive enough.  But that doesn't see to fit his previous cases.  It just gets juicier and juicier.

She was apparently a very capable NOC operative of the highest order for approximately the eight years of '85 to '93.  She was most likely pulled by being compromised in the Ames affair, or something of the such.  But then she met new hubby anyhow and told him she was secret agent girl.  First obvious indication she was no longer NOC and would not be in the future.  And many things after that in the late nineties would indicate the same.  Of course I think she is liberal scum, but would shake her hand anyday for her service.

 So, if she had been "outed" 12 years ago, the special prosecutor would have a case? Would still like to know what important ops she accomplished. "Of the highest order" - I don't know about the CIA, but in the Army pretty much everyone is (at least was) rated high (90+ with 50 defined as average on a scale of 100).

Being NOC, either on her own or in conjunction with a team, usually means developing live sources.  As she speaks French, German, and Greek, it was probably sources in the crumbling eastern Europe.  Likely to have developed compromised foreign agents or grown her own.  Sent out in the mold of Cold War agent handler, but as the wall was coming down, she probably did other things.

My new conspiracy page has a link to some Val gal stuff.

The Inflamitory: Ambassador Wilson Conspiracy

and proper to criticize Hannity on it.  Good points.

As a newbie, I'm finding it hard to follow your references to "the media".  Do we consider Hannity not in "the media" because he's basically an entertainment show that doesn't check facts or have credibility?  Are we saying Fox News more generally is part of "the media" or that it isn't?

The CIA leak case seems to cross lots of the stereotyped boundaries, since "the media" has been openly obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation for 2 years, with the NY Times and Time Magazine only the most famous participants.

So while you make a great point that certainly takes the high ground over the likes of Hannity or Limbaugh, you might want to hold off describing "the media" as a monolith or you'll wind up sounding a little like them.

 Carlos - thx for the link. I couldn't resist the IQ test, you probably knew that. IQ 135 - see what I mean about rating inflation - I rest my case. In the 4 catagories I was rated exactly the same as you - seperated at birth? Don't really get the results though - I have always thot I had a VERY logical mind (if nothing else), but rated below avg in logic (as did you). In verbal (I got c's and d's in english) I rated genius. Bassackwards as they used to say in the Army!

the good ol USA..I won't be surprised if 2 million people listen to garbage

 Why we both got below average in logic that is. The creators of the test may figure that a logical person would not take the test. That is, a logical person would think 'Taking an IQ test is not going to change my IQ so it is not logical to take it'. That, of course, "assumes" that everyone who takes the test gets that score in logic. Oh well.

I've already answered your question. But going around insisting that people loudly condemn a supposedly White House-orchestrated smear campaign consisting of one anonymous, bitter guy (what did Fitzgerald nail him for, I wonder?) is going to make people cranky, including the people with keys to The Pile<sup>TM</sup&gt. Plenty of people on the right have endorsed Fitzgerald's character, and when you have Michelle Malkin smacking Kay Bailey Hutchinson in your cause, I think it's safe to lay off the interrogations.

It's "Plamequiddick".

All this speculation is being blinded by your partisanship.  Your partisanship has lead most people speculating on this website to believe there was basically nothing wrong with what Rove and Libby did, don't kid yourself if Rove and Libby committed perjury they didnt do it because of "faulty memories".  The idea that they didnt know what crime fitzgerald is investigating is laughable. many people here seem to be "reaching" for interpretation

of the few facts they know that is consistent with Rove and Libby being innocent.  Witnesses have turned the evidence is going to be alot stronger than Rove forgot a conversation here or there.

First off, why did Rove and Libby lie?

This is the crazy part, that keeps amazing me, people keep saying "no crime", "no crime", "no crime".  You do realize Rove and Libby have legal counsel, they would not lie just for "fun", if they lied they certainly had some reason too.  If they lied that more or less implies they were aware they committed crime.

If fitzgerald doesnt indict for the underlying crime

it is only cause he thinks its easier to prove perjury, it doenst mean he thinks they are innocent of the other crimes.

For example when martha stewart lied, she did it because she incorrectly believed she broke the law.  So your telling me it is exceptable to have members of the administration whose behavior is so nefarious that they are never sure when they have crossed the line for legal to illegal.

Whatever case Fitzgerald brings (and I suspect that it won't be of the "October surprise" variety), I expect it to be well supported by the facts and law.  That's how he's operated in the past, and I see no reason why he would change now.  

There seem to be a lot of assumptions in your comment. Can they be challenged?

"First off, why did Rove and Libby lie?"

What if they didn't? What if they didn't clearly lie or obstruct or perjure? What if there is confusion or incompleteness to their testimony? What if the prosecutor is unsure of the strength of the case, if any, which he can make against either or both of them? What if they told the truth under oath but not to reporters, and others lied about them?

"If they lied that more or less implies they were aware they committed crime."

You cite Martha Stewart in your note as the precise opposite of this implication. Didn't she have legal counsel as well? How does this compare and contrast with this implication? Is it possible to commit one crime without committing a series of other crimes which could be implicated? Is it possible to commit no crimes, even with implications about several?

"If fitzgerald doesnt indict for the underlying crime

it is only cause he thinks its easier to prove perjury, it doenst mean he thinks they are innocent of the other crimes."

What is the basis and use for this observation? It seems that most reports say this prosecutor will pursue whatever case he feels is required, and I'm unaware of any mention of plea-bargaining, lesser-included, or similar dealings among several allegations available. It's a general statement of prosecutorial discretion, but does it seem likely in this instance?

Could Joe Wilson be unreliable or wrong? Is it a crime to consider evidence serving as the basis of either possibility?

How did you feel about the crime of perjury when clinton lied to the grand jury? Did that sit well with you?

Should we not pursue politicians if all they do is commit perjury?

What crime was behind the perjury charges against clinton? And why would these perjury charges IF they are brought be any different?

what specific crimes were behind the perjury charges against clinton?

Very true. If republicans push to ignore perjury charges on this case, again IF there are going to be any, then they will be doing the same kind of flip flop they accuse the democrats of doing all the time.

Excuse me if I'm confused here. He lied about having sex with monica lewinski. Were the people you just mentioned having sex with her at the same time therefore his lie protected them?

Is this all just a plan by the left? delay, frist, rove, libby. If they were able to set each of these people up then they are very good at it.

But wherever you go, republicans defend all of the above and begin to cite conspiracy theories.

Is it possible that ANY of these people have committed crimes or at the very least need to be ousted for ethics violations?

Is it "possible"? Or is the fact that they are republicans make it impossible for there to be any actual crimes or ethics violations committed?

Doesn't anyone think that getting rid of a few bad apples, as opposed to protecting them, will make the party stronger?

And I do mean IF there is actual evidence of wrongdoing and not merely smoke. There just seems to be, on many blogs, the perception that ANY republican indicted is obviously not really guilty and that we need to stand behind each and every one of them no matter what or it will somehow hurt the conservative movement.

I think it's just the opposite. It's the bad apples that hurt the movement. It's the protect them at any cost bunch that hurts either party's reputation.

I just say, if there is enough proof to indict and convict, let them get the bad apples out of the way.

Or was that a typo for "regain"?

. . .then my comments will not be operative.  However, I have too many angry memories of Judge Walsh bringing those bogus indictments down four days before the 1992 election to blithely trust in the reputation of someone given one of these disturbingly overpowered positions.  If Mr. Fitzgerald is a better man than that, it is to his credit.

Yeah, we probably have the same great great uncle or something.  I ALWAYS think logically, all the way to a ridiculously wrong conclusion.  I think they design those test to frustrate me.  As for verbosity, I blather on allot, but that shouldn't get me a better score, don't get it.  The math parts ok, I'm not to bad.  So if I was more logical, your saying I wouldn't have taken the test, and then I would know I was more logical, but I couldn't test the fact, for fear of risking my self awareness.  Hey!  Your making sense.....

First, your partisanship has blinded you to actual facts.  What witness has turned?  Or are you saying that you go beyond speculation?  Laughable.  And partisan speculation is the whole point, but if you don't enjoy it, I apologize.  And where do I imply that they didn't know what crime was being investigated?  What I mean is, before the investigation, how could they not know the statutes?  If they didn't know, then they were stupid.  If they did know, then why call for special prosecutor?  My contention, which I believe there is ample public information to judge, is that any half way competent  legal counsel could determine that the statute is not satisfied.  And I then contend, as do many other partisan hacks here, that either the CIA and the White House ignored these facts just so they could duke it out, or they are both inept.  Or one one way, the other the other way, whatever.  It is not reaching for interpretation.  It is very clearly laid out by the worst kind of liberal lawyer in the friend of the court brief trying to spring Judy.  So is it partisan to agree with the polar opposite?  Actually it pains me to agree with them, but truth is truth whether it comes from the right or left.

Let's be Americans and probe into this fascinating story. I think that the truth will out. While this is long, we need to read it to be informed citizens. This from dailykos blog:

"The issue of whether Iraq sought to buy yellowcake from Niger is and has always been irrelevant. The White House -- Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley; the intelligence community -- Tenet and CIA, DOE, and the State Department; Valerie Plame, and Joe Wilson, have all understood this from day one. Plame herself called the idea "crazy."

What has been utterly misunderstood, misrepresented, and lost amid the babble of speculation and intrigue, is that Iraq didn't need yellowcake. They'd had a million pounds of it sitting around "in country" for over a decade, but with no viable means whatsoever of making it into nuclear weapons.

It is all about the cover-up.

Todd Johnston's diary :: ::

The science is what's missing. Understand that and the real fraud will smack you right between the eyes, that someone rammed the Niger/yellowcake 'angle' down the intelligence community's throats. And everyone in the IC knew it, choosing to either toe the line or mutter quietly in the halls.

Except Joe Wilson. He picked the scab that mattered, pointed to the elephant in the room. Niger. God willing, I'll find a way to make these subtle but important distinctions clear. Please bear with me.

Mine and refine

In nature, uranium is an ore much like iron. You dig it out of the ground as a big lump of uranium mixed with crud. The crud has to go, so by one of a few processes the crud is stripped away leaving mostly uranium. BTW, the industry's technical term for "crud" is "other." Crud's funnier.

The so-called "pure" uranium that's left over is very weakly radioactive and not especially dangerous. Also, like cheese in the sun, it doesn't stay "pure" for long because it reacts with the air, sometimes in ways that are unpleasant.

So countries like Niger, who mine and sell uranium force it to react a specific way to make a product that can be safely stored for a long time. They turn it into yellowcake. [1]

Yellowcake is nothing more than uranium right from the ground that has been refined and stabilized. Short of eating it, breathing it, or batter-dipping yourself in it, yellowcake is not all that dangerous either.

This is really important.

On a drive from NJ to CA, at the PA state line you are indeed closer to CA. But if you have to pee, I wouldn't recommend holding it.

On the drive to build a nuclear weapon from uranium, "yellowcake" is the PA state line. FYI, should you make to the mid-west, Israel will start launching U.S. cruise missles at you.

Process and enrich

The whole point of a nuclear weapon is making a big "boom." And that is really frickin' hard or a terrorist would have done it a long time ago.

Like everything else in the universe, uranium is made of atoms. And like everything else in the universe, somebody screwed up because 1 out of every 100 uranium atoms is slightly different from the other 99. THAT's the one that goes "boom." So, you have to find that one stinkin' atom out of a hundred, toss away the other 99 (depleted uranium), and do this again and again until you have enough.

Like a bazillion times. Because, as President Bush so clearly illustrated, it takes about a softball-sized chunk of enriched uranium to make a nucular weapon. And there are like a bazillion atoms in a softball. If a few regular old non-booming uranium atoms slip in, that's OK, but 90 out of 100 have to be the 'funny' kind.

A lump of uranium where 90 out of 100 atoms are the dangerous kind is weapons-grade uranium.

Making weapons-grade uranium from yellowcake sucks, and it takes a long time. First you have to turn the yellowcake into a gas, and then that gas into a different gas, etc., etc. and ONLY THEN can you start searching through a gas for the atoms that go "boom." Remember that scene in the Karate Kid, where Mr. Miagi and what's his face are trying to catch flies with chopsticks? Harder than that.

Preparing yellowcake so you can start looking for the right atoms is typically called "processing" and repeatedly separating out that single atom and tossing away the other 99 is called enriching uranium. You are making the uranium "richer" in the kind that go "boom."

Low-enriched uranium (LEU) has more than 1 funky uranium atom per 100, but less than 20.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is anything with more than 20 per 100.

Nuclear reactor fuel has 3 or 4 funky uranium atoms per 100.

Weapons grade uranium has more than 90 funky uraniums atom per 100. [2]

OK, breathe. Now that you are officially a nuclear physicist, some historical persepctive is in order:

In 1991, Iraq was discovered to have about 500 metric tons (~1 million lbs.) of yellowcake they'd 'forgotten' to mention. George Herbert Walker Bush, his coalition pals, and the International Atomic Energy Agency were so alarmed that Iraq had yellowcake, they decided to leave it in Iraq. The "prudent" course of action as they saw it: put it drums, seal it up, and check the seals once a year. They knew an entire year was not long enough for Hussein to make anything dangerous out of yellowcake. [3, .pdf]

That yellowcake was inspected and remained untouched until Hussein barred the U.N. inspectors in late 1998. [see 3 above]

On Oct. 6, 2002, the CIA sent a fax to the White House that stated "the procurement [of yellowcake] is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide [yellowcake] in their inventory. [4, para. 7, emphasis added]

During Dec. 9-11, 2002, before Bush's SOTU claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Africa, U.N. Inspectors verified that the yellowcake from 1991 was in Iraq, undisturbed, and still sealed. [see 3 above]

I hope you've made it this far. This background is crucial to truly understanding what happened, and what may yet happen, i.e. Iran (with an "n") who is processing uranium, not enriching it yet. Here's the payoff:

Repeated claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, initiated and bolstered solely by the CIA's Directorate of Operations were irrelevant. The idea was never credible, never implied Iraq was re-starting their nuclear programs, and never taken seriously. Iraq had all the yellowcake it needed and 4 years to use it ('99-'02) -- they had no facilities to enrich uranium.

Ask yourself: why would Iraq try to buy 500-550 mT of yellowcake when they already had the same amount, during a period and no one was inspecting it?

Care to guess where Iraq originally bought it's yellowcake back in the late 80's? About 1/2 of it came from Niger, receipts they turned over in the early 90's. Receipts from the 80's for 500-550 mT of yellowcake.

And finally, yes finally, ask yourself who in the Bush administration during '02-'03 didn't understand the unspannable gap between yellowcake and a nuclear bomb:

George W. Bush? Who's father left 500 mT of yellowcake in Hussein's possession?

Dick Cheney? The Secretary of Defense in 1991? The energy mogul with interests in nuclear power?

Condoleeza Rice? The head of NSC who got her undergraduate degree at age 19 and her master's at 20? Who served on the board of Chevron and had a tanker named after her?

George Tenet? Whose agency said buying yellowcake "was not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions?""

So .. when we heard from VP Cheney and Condi about mushroom clouds, etc, they knowlingly were spewing forth spin .. bad. Now we are learning that Steven Hadley (White House aide and neocon)went to Italy and soon after a document (now known to have been forged there several days later and released) was manufactured to add credibility to the Niger uranium claim. Let's stay on point.

Its not about the evidence, its about the accusation.  I agree with half of your statement.  If they are convicted in a court of law, ditch them.  But you are naive if you think that its not a current leftist political tactic to try and get any accusation to stick on anybody.  They really don't care about convictions in a court of law, they are after convictions in the court of public opinion.  That is politics.  And it is questionable that just standing up for everybody makes any difference.  A counter attack is probably necessary, but that is not generally how the right operates.  So think about proof and evidence as it aplies to public opinion, not the result of a trial.  

And you are right about the court of public opinion, however both sides play that game IMO.

Too bad so many believe whatever is spun by either side without thinking about it.

Its the spin addiction.  Like getting hooked on soap operas.  But it sells papers, get radio listeners, and Nielsen ratings.

Clinton didn't lie to a grand jury.

He lied in a deposition to Paula Jones Lawyers in a sexual harrasment lawsuit.  The lawyers were attempting to establish a pattern of behavior, and the questions about sexual activity were germaine to that suit.

Clinton's attornies were present, Clinton understood what the case was against him, and Clinton's attornies were given access to information from the other side, and Clinton chose to lie.  He was charged, should have been, he was given a slap on the wrist, and was disbarred.  I think it was a fair punishment.

One huge difference to me is that Rove, Libby and anyone else exposed weren't made aware of what direction they investigation was heading, they were not given target letters (none of the players involved have been given target letters), and their attornies are not present or given any access to information Fitzgerald has uncovered.

There is a difference.

So it depends-but I already said if there is evidence to charge them, and he chooses to do so, and proves his case in court, then they should be punished.  But I am bothered by perjury charges that are the result of a fishing expedition where the players are kept blind as to the direction of the investigation and where it turns out no underlying crime is determined to have occurred.

there has been much speculation regarding the espionage act-that is different from the revelation of a covert operative.

They weren't given target letters, and they were asked to testify (in our justice system, defendants have the right to remain silent, and in the federal system, if an investigation is focusing in on somebody as a "target" then the prosecutor must give them a target letter).  To date, Fitzgerald hasn't done so.  I think calling Rove back to testify without a target letter, if Fitzgerald was in fact focusing on him is unethical.  It also provides a technical defense to have evidence tossed (may not work, but the defense attorney is going to do it).

charge was related to the sexual harrassment suit filed by Paula Jones.

He perjured himself in a deposition to her attornies.  He was obligated to tell the truth-you do not have a right to remain silent in civil court.  He chose to lie.

His attorney was there, and understood that this was the direction Jones' attornies were taken.

Your quesiton is stupid, and it is moot.

It was a civil suit, not a criminal suit or investigation.  He lied in order to prevent Jones from building a case against him.  He was obligated to tell the truth, he got caught, and he got convicted, fined, and disbarred.

Clinton's case is different from this one.

Clinton's perjury was during a civil lawsuit deposition.  His attorney was present, and they were aware of the direction her lawyers were taking.  His attorney could have and should have advised him to not lie.

In this case, the grand jury is essentially a fishing expedition.  Rove, Libby and any others exposed to perjury charges, are unaware of what direction the investigation was heading, nobody in this case has received a target letter, so none of them have been warned they are a target.  Their attornies aren't present, and their attornies aren't given any access to information Fitzgerald has gleaned from his investigation.  Being charged with perjury, in what turns out to be an unfruitful fishing expedition (unfruitful meaning the fishing expedition turns up no primary crimes) smacks of a prosecutor looking to justify his time.

But if anyone did perjure themselves, and Fitzgerald prosecutes, and they are convicted, I don't see any room to defend it.  It sort of turns into the Martha Stewart defense-and there is some valid reason for complaint, even if the crime occured, and the perpetrators are punished.  There is just a sense of unfairness about it.

attornies, their attornies aren't present in the GJ room, and their attornies are given no access to any information pertaining to the case Fitzgerald is building against their clients.

"Go read NRO, York's new peice  By: Carlos  

There is a difference, if there is no crime underlying the perjury indictments, then is pure phishing.  Clinton had the problem that crimes were committed."

The question was legitimate, since he said the difference between this and the rove/libby possible perjury charges were different because clinton lied to cover up crimes.

Maybe not reading what the question was about is stupid.

I asked it simply to make the poster clarify or qualify his statement.

Whether you understand what direction the investigation is going in or not makes absolutely no difference.

A lie to a grand jury is also perjury. If you have nothing to hide why lie to a grand jury.

Anyway talk about moot points. We don't even know they lied at all. I'll wait to see, but for now they have the benefit of the doubt.

Just saying IF they lied to the grand jury it's perjury, plain and simple regardless of whether they knew the "direction" of the investigation or not.

The same went for clinton. I think the slap on the wrist was way to light since over a thousand people during his administration did jail time for the same offense. I don't believe politicians should be above the law and should be punished the same as anyone else for the same offenses.

Oh well, in a perfect world.