I’m curious as to who knew what. In any case, the apparent punishment of Wilson for daring to tell the truth is damning enough even if the only thing legally wrong was trying to avoid providing details during the enquiry.
We all know how important it is not to lie about anything don’t we?
Anyway, for the die hard cheerleaders, can you not separate your belief in the policies from the methods used to enact those policies? Does it not matter to you at all?
Anyway, for the die hard cheerleaders, can you not separate your belief in the policies from the methods used to enact those policies? Does it not matter to you at all?[/quote]
LMAO@ you for thinking partisan hacks are able to be objective and logical.
Lest it be forgotten with all the new items floating around today, the key would still apparently be the knowledge standard. To explain a little more, there is a difference between knowing the name of a CIA agent, and knowing that the name of the CIA agent is the name of an undercover agent that needs to be kept secret.
And again, this only speaks to the underlying laws, not to any matters of obstruction of justice, perjury or the like.
Some interesting speculations – good for working the mind at any rate:
Notes Ex Machina
The NY Times delivers a shocker in the Plame case - per notes taken by Lewis Libby, George Tenet, former director of the CIA, told Dick Cheney that Ms. Wilson was involved in Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger. Dick Cheney then relayed this information to Libby on June 12, 2003, the day of the oft-cited Walter Pincus article ( http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=1160&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported ).
Why is this huge? As the Times recounts, up to now various leaks have suggested that Libby is relying on a “Blame the media” strategy: Libby has reportedly testified ( Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry - The New York Times ) that he first learned about the “Wilson and wife” story from reporters in conversations that took place in July.
Fascinating. A few of these fine bloggers take a stab at a very obvious question - where did these notes come from? Libby is cooperating and has finally turned them over seems to be the consensus among those who hazard any guess at all; put the Anon Lib ( http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2005/10/all-vice-presidents-men.html ) in that group.
We score this a “Maybe”. Maybe Libby has hidden these notes all along, and has hoped that (a) Cheney lied or forgot his talk with Libby when interviewed as part of the investigation; (b) Tenet lied or forgot his talk with Cheney; or, (c) to fit the emptywheel notion, Cheney was foresighted enough to lie to Libby about his source when Libby was taking notes back in June 2003; and (d) neither White House nor CIA phone logs and sign in sheets would put Cheney and Tenet in a meeting where Wilson might have been discussed and about which they might have been questioned.
All possible in the Grand Conspiracy and cover-up! But let’s take a few steps back, and conjure a conspiracy of our own.
Now, the high priced legal talent is paid to review everything submitted to the prosecutor. What are the odds they overlooked this morsel that Cheney told Libby about Wilson’s wife?
So let’s guess that Libby’s counsel, and Libby, knew all about the Cheney connection more or less at the outset of the investigation. Libby would have been advised to be forthcoming with the grand jury - after all, as the Times notes, “It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration.”
And on to the conspiracy! Why do the Commentariat think Libby testified to a “Blame the media” strategy? Is this conventional wisdom based on leaks from Fitzgerald? No.
As many have noted, most of these leaks are coming from lawyers whose clients work for the Administration (a few reporter’s attorneys have been swept up as well, of course).
So, suppose Libby’s attorneys have been whiling away the summer months, and on into autumn, feeding the press a partially true cover story that Libby was blaming the Plame leaks on Tim Russert ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/tim_russert_ree.html ), and encouraging speculation about Judy Miller. Clinton’s team made the mistake of attacking the prosecutor and drawing return fire; this time, the White House was crafty enough to attack the press.
Right wing running dogs (my hand is held high: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/i_claim_press_c.html ) are always ready to denounce the media; the left was hopelessly distracted by Judy Miller; and Dick Cheney was kept out of the story until the final week. If that was an objective, Mission Accomplished.
In this theory, Fitzgerald (if he reads the papers) is laughing out loud - Libby testified to Cheney’s role almost two years ago, and Fitzgerald doesn’t care about Cheney. The Times certainly gives that impression, noting that Cheney is not being reinterviewed by Fitzgerald.
As to Libby’s “Blame the media” pose - his actual testimony may only be a bit different from the staged leaks. For example, perhaps Libby testified that he only talked with reporters about Wilson’s wife after hearing about it from other reporters, and in leaks to the press that conveniently morphed into “Libby only knew about it after talking with reporters”. Blame the media, shield Cheney, disclose the near-truth - a trifecta!
And why did Fitzgerald pursue the media so intently? Because he still needs to know who leaked, and Libby’s “blame the media” strategy" is relevant to that line of inquiry even if Cheney’s role has been fully disclosed. As to the current gloomy atmospherics at the White House - well, they aren’t staging that. Libby may well have other problems with his Judy Miller/Tim Russert testimony that have nothing to do with Cheney.
Here we are. Even some aficionados are growing weary of this speculation and leak-parsing (but not me!). Since Fitzgerald is expected to announce something (anything!) this week, this debate has the feel of ruminating about which team has the best chance to win the World Series with two outs in the ninth inning of the seventh game.
Put another way - Time will tell, shortly. But don’t rule out the possibility that all of those leaks about Libby’s testimony have been a misdirection play. That seems at least as plausible as a grand conspiracy involving eerily prescient missing notes, tampered records and false statements from Cheney and Tenet.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Freeptards (i.e. RJ, BB, etc.) on this board are no better than the loser DU’ers.
Indictments will be handed out and the GOP will fall all over themselves regurgitating Clinton’s lame ass excuses.
Pathetic.
Ad hominem does not change the fact that Fitz will hand out indictments and he will be fully justified in doing so.
Arrogance comes before a fall.
Peace out Freeptards.
I don’t know what worse…intellectually dishonest Freeptrads (I know that redundant…sorry) or left wingnut DU’ers spouting off about ‘Fitzmas’?[/quote]
Are you referring to something you’ve seen on here (I don’t see any ad hominems againts Fitzgerald - in fact, I posted something in which a former colleague was praising his integrity), seen elsewhere, or are you just repeating the DNC talking points. FYI, the only person who has been reported to be critical of Fitzgerald, to my knowledge, has been Sean Hannity.
Though I know you’ve been predicting as much – probably reading those paleo blogs again or something. Or are you just engaging in some form of political onanism for the purposes of seeing your own words in print on the internet? Predicting like the amazing Karnac? What is it?
Or are you commenting on your own use of that interesting little word “freeptard,” which you apparently got off of your Democratic Underground “word of the day” calendar, and are now trying to work into all your posts to make certain you remember it for future usage? Honestly, I laugh every time I see that word, as the only image it conjurs in my mind as to someone who would use it is Corky from that old show “Life Goes On,” or perhaps one of the kids in the old McDonald’s commercials: “Welcome to McDonald’s! Can I help you?!” Of course, in both cases I’d be proud of them for their efforts and accomplishments, whereas in this case it’s just funny.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yeah, but since Cheney got it from Tenet, I suppose he could have withheld full details when talking to Libby… so that Libby wouldn’t have known.
Hmmm. Gotta like deniability and the burden of proof![/quote]
Talk about cherry pickin’. You know for a fact that Cheney got it from Tenet, and then passed it to Libby who then leaked it? Good thing for CNN or you’d be clueless.
Far as I know that’s all speculation. Libby is still saying he got the info from a reporter. But we all believe what we want.
And nice add in line previously that even though this may not be proven now, you know for sure that Bush’s presidency will be looked down upon in the future for all of it’s scandalous behavior.
Who’s your insider to the grand jury?
Oh that’s right, you managed to throw enough qualifiers in to squeak your way out.
It seems there were a lot of people ready to tar and feather him.
Now it looks like Cheney and “Scooter” are involved instead.
All over the “outing” of a CIA agent whose cover appeared to be she was a CIA employee.
Oh well, if there was a real crime Fitzgerald actually looks like he is the type to ask for indictments based on reality rather than politics.
There has been so much baseless speculation on this issue I really think we should wait for Fitzgerald to tie it up before we start deciding who should be shot.
Since Fitzgerald and his office are not leaking anything all the reporting is based on spin from lawyers representing those involved. Trying to find any truth in that is like trying to read by moonlight at the bottom of a well.
Some pieces of advice, courtesy of “The Note” on abcnews.com – some of which are quite sage:
EXCERPT:
While we all wait, our main advice is: deep breaths and lots of water (Note: the water thing does NOT apply to those of you who expect to be doing hours of live TV.)
Our secondary and tertiary advice includes:
Indictments are not convictions.
Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
This might or might not be a tea leave as big as all Rancho Cucamonga: Roll Call’s Mary Ann Akers, in the only scoop of the cycle, hears that Fitzgerald paid a visit to Patton Boggs yesterday to see Karl Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin. Akers says the hallways of the firm were abuzz with rumors that Fitzgerald will have to ask for an extension on the investigation.
If you think it is strange that Patrick Fitzgerald’s team is interviewing the Wilsons’ neighbors in what is believed to be the last week, consider yourself both right and wrong.
Not everything about Fitzgerald can be divined from his relationship with cats ? but almost everything.
Don’t expect this story to (continue to) play out like a paperback thriller or an Oscar contender (but don’t be surprised if it does).
As Bloomberg’s Al Hunt sagely points out, Fitzgerald, like Imelda Marcos, could have a closet-full of additional shoes beyond what might drop shortly.
The warmth, respect, and affection that Bush-Cheney staffers feel for Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby is abundant and genuine.
There are a lot of things that aren’t illegal which are politically embarrassing; people who do indictable things (and their colleagues) often have also done a lot of politically embarrassing things.
Don’t try to anticipate the reaction of the public to the story as it twists, turns, and develops.
Don’t let your fears/hopes that the Administration is a sinking ship distract from the day-to-day realities and customs of the Bush White House.
Fitzgerald has a history of longish indictments with plenty of narrative detail.
Please don’t be surprised if the grand jury is extended, if there are many people indicted, if no one is indicted, or if indictments are issued under seal.
You have permission to be surprised if a constitutional officer is formally listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
You have permission to be surprised if the word “forgeries” appears in any indictment.
Brace for pompous analyses galore of how wrong the coverage was ? perhaps more off-the-mark than the run-up to Justice Clement, er, Roberts.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
There has been so much baseless speculation on this issue I really think we should wait for Fitzgerald to tie it up before we start deciding who should be shot.
[/quote]
Don’t start making sense, Zap - you’ll confuse the ones carrying torches and ropes. Wait until Fitzgerald finishes? Do you have any idea what that would do to the MSM ‘news’ cycle? No sirree bob.
Speculation is what fuels the loser left. Speculation and a lot of thinking whilst sitting beneath the Tree of Insight. How else can they convict Bush & Co.? Waiting on the Rule of Law is evidently not something the ABB/Way-Smart-Thinker crowd is intellectually honest enough to wait for.
They are above such menial tripe. Hell - they can’t even wait for Bush to leave office before telling us that his legacy is going to be trash.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What the hell is a freeptard?
What does DU stand for?
[/quote]
I didn’t know either, but if you do a google search on “freeptard” you’ll figure out from the context fairly quickly what it’s supposed to imply.
What a stupid word. It doesn’t really mean anything, and it sounds ridiculous – not a good combo. Combine that with the fact that it originated amongst those who think of bathing as an optional activity, and you know all you need to know on that subject. I think that just by typing it I probably lowered my IQ by several points.
As for “DU,” I think that references the Democratic Underground, which, amusingly, as far as I can tell is where the word “freeptard” originated.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…
I didn’t know either, but if you do a google search on “freeptard” you’ll figure out from the context fairly quickly what it’s supposed to imply.
…[/quote]
Googling it was a huge mistake. Those political forums are full of raving lunatics. They make the fringe guys here look normal by comparison.
Freeptard:
An individual, usually possessing radically right-wing political views, who delights in insulting others and is usually racist, sexist, and homophobic.
Derived from freeper, the nickname of the denizens of the ultra-right wing Web site FreeRepublic.com.
ex:
All the people who work food service at my university are black and 98% of the people who attend my university are white. Matt believes this difference exists because ‘black people are lazier and dumber than white people’. What a racist freeptard!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
I didn’t know either, but if you do a google search on “freeptard” you’ll figure out from the context fairly quickly what it’s supposed to imply.
…
Googling it was a huge mistake. Those political forums are full of raving lunatics. They make the fringe guys here look normal by comparison.
Ah, thanks nephorm. I should have looked there instead of limiting myself to the real dictionary and to Wikipedia. Then I would have been spared reading all those posts on the Democratic Underground…
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Anyone ponder the possibility of Fitzgerald indicting WH officials with violating Wilson/Plame’s civil rights?
I am not looking for a flame here only an honest discussion of the ‘legalese’ behind indicting someone for violating someone else’s civil rights.[/quote]
What civil rights would have been violated that could yield an indictment?
If the offense was outing an undercover agent - where do civil rights come into the picture?