I was wondering that myself. I don’t really see any of the classic Constitutional civil rights claims being implicated here…
The closest thing I could imagine would be a big, big stretch at best: some sort of claim by Plame that the leak of her name amounted to a government action that deprived her of her rights without proper due process. Or something like that. That’s a pretty big doctrinal stretch, and I think any such claim would be summarily dismissed.
[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?
[/quote]
What is your malfunction?
I suppose leaks are no longer a useful source of information anymore? Shit, this whole thing is about the fact that information was leaked… ironic maybe?
It has been leaked that notes or email messages indicate that conversations were had between Cheney and Tenet and Libby and Cheney.
Now, I’m sure all the right wing news outlets that you listen to won’t report anything which could be incriminating, but that doesn’t mean that leaks don’t happen and that they aren’t factual at times.
How ironic again. Time will tell. You will probably only have to wait about 48 hours to know…
It’s getting really pathetic to watch you try to bitch about the stuff I’m posting all the time. Hell, I even make predictions and then you still whine that I won’t take a stand. Can you be any more clueless?
Maybe you should post some more that I don’t “actually know” what happened, whether or not anyone will be indicted or how Bush will be viewed. That’s the whole freaking point isn’t it!
More speculation on what’s to come – as I’ve said, Tom Maguire is following this fairly closely, so at least his details are right, even if he is speculating all over the place around them.
Better To Be Wrong Than Gutless
If my blog hosting service is willing, I will post my PURELY SPECULATIVE guesses in the Plame leak investigation:
Karl Rove walks - no indictment, nada. Jeralyn Merritt, who has been doing a superb job on this, keeps the flame flickering for a “False statements” charge ( How Karl Rove Could Walk - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime ) based on Rove’s early forgettery of his conversation with Matt Cooper of TIME. Based on the evidence leaked so far, it won’t happen.
Think back to the controversial Martha Stewart case ( http://www.courttv.com/trials/stewart/verdict_ctv.html ): Martha went down on a false statements charge, but as supporting evidence of her criminal intent the prosecution had evidence that she may have altered her records, supplemented by troubling testimony from her broker’s assistant and a personal friend.
With Rove, as best we know, we have Karl failing to recall ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/isikoff_arrives.html ) his conversation with Matt Cooper when asked by Federal investigators in 2003; the defense will have fun with the fact that the Department of Justice failed to ask about contacts with Matt Cooper in their original document request ( FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw ), so let’s not underestimate Matt Cooper’s forgettability.
Eventually, in response to a second set of subpoenas, the relevant email between Rove and Hadley was found, Rove’s attorney notified the Special Counsel, and Rove corrected his testimony. As Jeralyn notes, and as MacRanger (Plame Game - While Speculation is Rampant - Macsmind - Conservative Commentary on the News, Politics and Current Events ) pointed out to me a few days back ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/libby_and_rove_.html#comment-10424103 ), if a person corretcs their testimony during the term of a grand jury before discovery was imminent, they are in good shape.
Based on the leaks so far, this is far from a Martha Stewart scenario.
OK, on to the fall guys:
John Hannah ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/john_hannah.html ) had CIA links, so he can’t convincingly plead ignorance about Ms. Plame’s status. He gets a wrist slap for misuse of classified information. (Q: Does a “wrist slap” mean “no jail time”, or “short time”? A: Hmm, even “short” would seem long to me; no waffling here… No jail time it is. And get your own 8-Ball). Hannah’s offense - he was Novak’s primary source.
David Wurmser ( JustOneMinute: From John Hannah To David Wurmser ) also has CIA links, and he gets a wrist slap for leaking to Walter Pincus of the WaPo.
And Libby? He goes to trial, or walks. My full psychic prediction is that he will turn down a plea deal (after negotiating about what might have been disclosed in the accompanying indictment) and say to Fitzgerald, “Bring it on, Irish”.
If they are filed, charges will be perjury and obstruction, as well as a conspiracy to misuse classified info. However, Fitzgerald has very serious doubts about some of his star witnesses, such as Judy Miller. Both sides are weighing the implications of the venue for a trial - Libby knows it won’t be Berkeley, but it still might not be favorable for him. However, it might be politically awkward for Libby to ask for a change in venue. Of course, getting tossed into stir can be awkward, too.
No waffling: Libby goes to trial. The good news with this scenario is that otherwise, we will never know what the heck happened. Libby better plan to win, or lose, by Jan 19, 2009.
Final predictions - today is Wednesday, and if the Astros win the Series ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102600229.html ) they will need seven games. There - I can’t be all wrong.
FWIW: Last night there was a bit of a “Rove rally” at TradeSports. Well, “rally” for Sinister Righties - the market odds of a Rove indictment fell to about 45%. Libby was holding tough at around an 80% probability of indictment.
Currently, as of Wednesday morning: the probability of a Rove indictment is at 63%; Libby is at 76%.
OK - folks who want to back my play should SELL the Rove contract, which is headed to zero; profit will be a full $6.30 per contract.
Buy the Libby contract and try to pocket the difference when the contract rises from 76 to 100, for a profit of $3.40 per contract.
And ideas for clever spread trades? Maybe buy two Libbys for each sale of Rove, figuring there is no way that Rove is indicted and Libby walks? Very clever, but we don’t give investment advice here, we just speculate. For educational purposes only, of course.
MORE: Folks who want to mock Rove’s memory will want to be ready for push back on “Arkansas Alzheimer’s” ( TurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal Lust ), based on the memoery challenges experienced by Hillary and Bill in less happy times.
It doesn’t have to be this way - people forget, they hedge, and they caveat their testimony, OK?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
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.
rainjack wrote:
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?
I was wondering that myself. I don’t really see any of the classic Constitutional civil rights claims being implicated here…
The closest thing I could imagine would be a big, big stretch at best: some sort of claim by Plame that the leak of her name amounted to a government action that deprived her of her rights without proper due process. Or something like that. That’s a pretty big doctrinal stretch, and I think any such claim would be summarily dismissed.[/quote]
If you assume that Plame was a true NOC then outing her made her change her career path.
It is only a matter of time before Wilson/Plame file a civil case against numerous members of the White House and the MSM.
A ‘jury of your piers’ does not exist.
marmadogg,
I’m going to assume you meant “civil” case instead of “civil rights” case, which are different. Anyway, here’s an article looking at the possibility of a civil suit - I’d have to agree that it would be unlikely:
Possible Civil Suit Looms
As Threat in CIA-Leak Case
By NEIL KING JR.
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 27, 2005; Page A3
WASHINGTON – In addition to the prospect of indictments looming in the CIA leak case, the Bush administration faces another threat: civil litigation that could expose top officials to damage payments and years of wide-ranging scrutiny.
Former diplomat Joseph Wilson, whose criticism of the administration’s Iraq policy sparked the current furor and led to the outing of his Central Intelligence Agency-operative wife, Valerie Plame, isn’t saying for sure if he will sue. But one recent precedent is the debilitating civil suit against his former boss, President Clinton. “What would be interesting to us would be to get the justice that a civil case offers,” Mr. Wilson says.
A civil lawsuit could target Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and top presidential political adviser Karl Rove, both of whom are being investigated by a federal grand jury. Mr. Wilson has also suggested he may go after Mr. Cheney, or even President Bush, if evidence amassed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald supported a wider case.
Bush opponents, recalling how damaging Paula Jones’s sexual-harassment suit was against President Clinton in the 1990s, have long savored the prospects of a civil lawsuit in the Plame leak case. It was Mr. Clinton’s testimony in the Jones case that led to the perjury charges at the heart of his 1999 congressional impeachment trial.
If allowed to proceed, a civil lawsuit against senior White House officials could lead to years of intrusive discovery that would force open White House files and require many of Mr. Bush’s top aides to give public testimony under oath. “People have argued … that we pursue a civil case so we could root around in White House files and really see what was behind all of this, but we did not want to do that” until the formal investigation ended, Mr. Wilson said.
But some lawyers say that if he goes ahead with a civil case, Mr. Wilson could have a tough time getting around the legal immunity that largely protects government officials. It is equally uncertain what legal grounds he might use to successfully sue. Lawyers contend that most of the obvious avenues, such as defamation, emotional distress or lost job opportunities, aren’t that strong. They also point out that some of Mr. Wilson’s own actions in the last two years – including a Vanity Fair photo spread and a lucrative book deal – could further undermine any pursuit for monetary damages.
“For a host of reasons, it’s hard to see there being a strong case here,” said Larry Barcella, a former federal prosecutor in Washington who now works as a defense attorney.
Other lawyers argue that Mr. Wilson may be able to make the case that White House officials went beyond their official duties in seeking to smear him or his wife, thus stripping those officials of immunity.
Mr. Wilson wouldn’t elaborate on what grounds he might seek damages, or how confident he was of clearing the immunity hurdle. “We haven’t had that discussion with our lawyer yet,” he said. His lawyer, Christopher Wolf, a neighbor of the Wilsons who normally specializes in copyright and telecommunications law, declined to comment.
Experts caution that the same free-wheeling powers of discovery that would open up White House records could hurt Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame, too. “Anytime you file a lawsuit, you open yourself up to your life becoming an open book,” said Gilbert Davis, who represented Ms. Jones in the Clinton case. “The other side could start asking about their partisanship, their advocacy, what Plame did as a covert agent. That alone could lead to a dismissal of any suit if the judge rules that the defense couldn’t look into her official work at the CIA.”
A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last year questioned some assertions Mr. Wilson made about his own 2002 trip to Niger to look into allegations that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium in Africa. Mr. Wilson has argued repeatedly, for instance, that his findings in Niger debunked the Iraqi uranium quest, and were sent all the way up to Mr. Cheney. The report said neither was the case.
Mr. Wilson’s biggest obstacle would probably be in getting a judge to hear any civil case in the first place. Federal courts have long held that sitting presidents have complete immunity from civil actions regarding any acts as president. A more qualified immunity also applies to their aides, as to most government officials.
Mr. Clinton’s lawyers tried to stretch the immunity definition to protect him from the Jones lawsuit, which sought damages from a sexual overture he allegedly made in 1991 while governor of Arkansas. His lawyers argued that the case would distract the president from his official duties, and should be postponed until he left office. But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit could proceed. Ms. Jones later agreed to an $850,000 out-of-court settlement.
Mr. Wilson’s lawyer would have to convince a judge that any White House discussions about Ms. Plame’s status at the CIA – the issue at the heart of the leak examination – fell outside the bounds of official government acts.
Beyond the immunity issue, others say it could be hard to make a clear case that either Mr. Wilson or Ms. Plame were harmed by the leak, or that their reputations have suffered. Ms. Plame was under “nonofficial cover,” but was no longer working as an overseas covert operative when her CIA role was first mentioned in a Robert Novak column. She later agreed to be photographed in Vanity Fair, and continues to work at the CIA.
Mr. Wilson also turned his sudden fame into a book deal and a brief career as an adviser to presidential candidate John Kerry. Mr. Wilson has also appeared on dozens of television talk shows, and gives paid speeches across the country.
Still, Mr. Wilson suggests that what he would like more than anything is normality. “Valerie and I would like to have the quiet life that other Americans enjoy without being under attack from our own government,” he said.
Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com
If Plame was undercover and her identity was leaked to the press then they will be able to sue as her privacy was violated. Either way Bush and Cheney will both be put on the stand much like Clenis was put on the stand over Paula Jones.
The SCOTUS already ruled that a sitting president would be required to testify if they are named in a civil suit.
Newt has been quoted as saying, “You see the same people on the way up as you do on the way down.”
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
If Plame was undercover and her identity was leaked to the press then they will be able to sue as her privacy was violated. [/quote]
That is quite a stretch. But I guess if you can find a sympathetic judge, anything is possible.
And given that Plame’s hubby is so vitriolic in his ABBism, he might try anything he thinks might injure either the President, or the party.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
If Plame was undercover and her identity was leaked to the press then they will be able to sue as her privacy was violated. Either way Bush and Cheney will both be put on the stand much like Clenis was put on the stand over Paula Jones.[/quote]
First, even if you did assume she had been undercover at the time her name was leaked, you would need to assume she had a personal right of privacy to keeping her name secret (as opposed to a right owned by her employer, the CIA). That would be difficult to establish - especially given that in order to establish she was in fact undercover, it will need to be demonstrated that her employer was actively taking actions to keep her identity a secret, for its own reasons.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The SCOTUS already ruled that a sitting president would be required to testify if they are named in a civil suit.[/quote]
Not exactly. While I’m sure a Plame/Wilson lawyer would argue to extend the principle, what I remember the USSC did rule was that a sitting President could be subject to examination based on actions he took as a private citizen, prior to becoming president, if it didn’t unduly interfere with his execution of his duties of office.
Obviously there are a few things there that would be problematic for the Plame/Wilson litigation team.
But the most problematic item by far would be overcoming the immunity of governmental officials who are currently in office.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Newt has been quoted as saying, “You see the same people on the way up as you do on the way down.”[/quote]
Of all the things related to this whole kerfluffle surrounding Wilson/Plame, I find this the least worrisome, as even if Plame/Wilson were to file anything, I’m extremely confident it would be summarily tossed out of court. Not that such treatment would stop it from getting into headlines, but there wouldn’t be any substantive issues over which to fret.
Here is an update on Yahoo about action expected tomorrow.
Leak Case Announcement Expected Friday
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051027/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc
I’m getting the impression that there will be a range of charges under which both Rove and Libby will be indicted.
While some may not stick, keeping the ante high may help uncover more information via plea bargain or other means. In any case, what, if anything, anyone is found guilty of remains anyone’s guess.
Heavy duty charges, which have at least a good chance of sticking, would be really good leverage for digging right into the depths of the ordeal, wouldn’t you think?
After all, does the grand jury have to feel a conviction is probable, or simply that enough evidence exists that an indictment and subsequent attempt to prove guilt is warranted?
This might be an area where the right wing is engaging in wishful thinking, assuming that if you aren’t sure you can obtain a conviction, then you should not issue an indictment.
The fact it is hard to prove does not mean there isn’t enough evidence to try the case. I’m pretty certain Tenet, who called for an investigation, certainly remembers the details of what he supposedly told Cheney, including whether or not he provided any details of Plames role.
I’d imagine this information, if it was significant, is sitting in the hands of the grand jury right now. It certainly isn’t anything that I’ve heard discussed anywhere in the media though.
What else might they have that we have not heard about through leaks?
Interesting times!
I don’t know what to expect vroom.
As the Note pointed out yesterday, you shouldn’t be surprised if there are indictments, and you shouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t.
ALL the details we have are from strategically placed leaks. We’ll see how things turn out – I’ll reserve comment for when/if I see anyone indicted.
Here’s an interesting observation from Micky Kaus at Slate (definitely not a member of any part of the right wing) on the NYT story regarding Cheney giving Libby the info on Plame – which, of course, itself needs qualification because what we “know” of Libby’s grand jury testimony is based on leaks:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2128681/
Doubts have been expressed about the big front page NYT scoop of yesterday–the one that said George Tenet told Cheney about Plame’s status, and that Cheney then told Libby ( Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report - The New York Times ). Obvious Problem #1: If Tenet was such a key figure, wouldn’t he have testified before the actual grand jury? Obvious problem #2: Would Libby really have been dumb enough to contradict his own notes (which the prosecutor has had from the start: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102600532_2.html ) under oath?
[quote]vroom wrote:
…
After all, does the grand jury have to feel a conviction is probable, or simply that enough evidence exists that an indictment and subsequent attempt to prove guilt is warranted?
…[/quote]
If I remember correctly, the grand jury just needs to think there is enough evidence shown that the prosecutor COULD prove the person was guilty. I’ve heard prosecutors quoted as saying something to the effect of “I could indict a ham sandwich.” In other words, indictments are easy – our system trusts a combination of prosecutorial discretion and the grand juries to try to protect abuses.
As a good lawyer friend of mine said today at lunch: “You can indict a ham sandwich”.
I’m still not so sure indictments are in the offing. I am certain that vroom will be disappointed in that - if there are indictments, they will be few. But even if there is an indictment, or three, getting a conviction will be almost impossible.
All of the speculation that vroom is hanging his hat on is just that - speculation. There have been no leaks by Fitzgeralds office, or the Grand Jury. No one knows anything. Like I said yesterday - speculation is all they have to go on and the news cycle is so short the MSM is forced to start reporting opinion as news. Kinda reminds me of the Katrina goat screw that passed itself off as news coverage.
I know Rainjack, I know, things are only newsworthy if they support your position or that of the administration, which of course rarely differs.
It looks like we will find out tomorrow. Could the press have made a big deal out of nothing? Sure.
However, I like the “preemptive” dismissal of the whole issue as frivulous, since “no convictions” will occur. I’m sure that was your stance when slick Willy was being investigated too.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I know Rainjack, I know, things are only newsworthy if they support your position or that of the administration, which of course rarely differs.[/quote]
No - I just don’t think speculation and opinion should be used in lieu of real facts. If and when indictments are brought down - THEN you will have news. But until then - call a spade a spade.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it supports my position or not. Yours and Yahoo’s and the NYT’s opinion pieces does nothing to prove anything other than there is a very short news cycle.
So my opinion is taking a back seat to yours? You have less proof for your position than I do mine. I say there will be no convictions and there has not even been an indictment handed down yet. Your proof that there was wrongdoing is to point to Harriet Miers’ withdrawal and say. “Look - she withdrew - I told you Rove was guilty of something”.
Give me a fucking break.
Rainjack, let this sink in a little bit, I don’t have any proof of anything. I can readily admit that.
Maybe all this speculation and so on is less fun when you are an avid supporter of Bush, but from where I sit, there is nothing to lose.
If indictments come down, then it helps support some of my judgments on various things in the past. If convictions were to follow, it would greatly support some of my past thoughts. If nothing comes down, it is simply a non-event and nothing really changes.
This is entertaining. Well, maybe not for cheerleaders, but for the rest of us it is. I wonder how soon in the day tomorrow we’ll find out whether or not anything is going to happen?
Either way, indictments or not, I’m really looking foward to hearing about it. This is one of the most exciting and interesting times in politics since the entire Clinton impeachment.
Be an asshole all you want, this is simply captivating stuff.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, let this sink in a little bit, I don’t have any proof of anything. I can readily admit that.
Maybe all this speculation and so on is less fun when you are an avid supporter of Bush, but from where I sit, there is nothing to lose.
If indictments come down, then it helps support some of my judgments on various things in the past. If convictions were to follow, it would greatly support some of my past thoughts. If nothing comes down, it is simply a non-event and nothing really changes.
This is entertaining. Well, maybe not for cheerleaders, but for the rest of us it is. I wonder how soon in the day tomorrow we’ll find out whether or not anything is going to happen?
Either way, indictments or not, I’m really looking foward to hearing about it. This is one of the most exciting and interesting times in politics since the entire Clinton impeachment.
Be an asshole all you want, this is simply captivating stuff.[/quote]
You referred to the speculation as being newsworthy and accused me of basically cherry picking the ‘news’ that agrees with my viewpoints.
My point is that what you are referring to as being newsworthy is nothing more than completely unsubstantiated speculation. If you are so eager to be right, then I can see why you have such fervant interest in every editorial that agrees with you.
I just prefer to wait on real news - even news that is reported from a leak. But you have nothing but speculation. If I were interested in non-news, I could easily find as many reports from the 'net that supported the ‘much ado about nothing’ school of thought. But I don’t. Why? Speculation is not news. It is not proof. It is nothing more than folks spewing opinion.
I love the way you accuse me of cheerleading when you are the one with the skirt on. How else do you explain connecting Harriet Miers’ withdrawal with Rove’s guilt?
2-4-6-8 - who does vroom appreciate? Evidently anyone that will write an opinion piece that agrees with his viewpoint.
We’ll find out tomorrow Rainjack. One way or another. Believe it or not, the ordeal, the process, the fact the deadline is approaching, the leaks which may or may not be true, it’s all news.
You can go around trying to decide what is and what is not news, but I think the fact that we are all glued to the damned tube to see what is or is not going to happen pretty much makes this news.
It’s not up to me. It’s not up to you. It just is.
Keep squawking, it just shows how uptight this whole subject makes you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Keep squawking, it just shows how uptight this whole subject makes you.[/quote]
Hate to disappoint you, but I am not uptight about this at all. I am not glued to the tube. In fact I have not even surfed across a news channel since Wilma was in Cancun.
I just find it hilarious that you are so fervorous in your quest to be right, that you will accuse me of cheerleading for preferring to wait until something really happens instead of listening to wild speculation - whether it come from the left, or the right.
Psst, there are other threads Rainjack…
It looks as if Rove walks away without an indictment.
So far the only criminal we have is Scooter Libby. And that not of outing an undercover agent, but of lying to the GJ.
That has to be disappointing to the blood thirsty jackals that wanted to smell the burning flrsh of Mr. Rove.