Why so little said here on "Plamegate"?

[Campy]

She wasn't a CIA covert operative any more.  She hadn't been one for 9 years. She was a desk jockey in CIA HQ. That law doesn't apply either.

481651[/snapback]

You can stick to your talking points, that's cool. I guess my take is that the CIA probably wouldn't have requested an investigation if they didn't think it was serious.

 

If it turns out that the leak could potentially harm US interests (including humint and established contacts), that law most certainly applies, regardless of her status now.

[pope zimli]

A couple of resonses to some throughout this thread:

1. It was the CIA that requested Justice to investigate the leak, so it's not some political witch hunt.  In addition, Why would the CIA ask for an investigation if they didn't think there was a violation? Does it matter whether the source was an act/law/bill?

 

As for the credibility of Wilson (and this is the first time I've read someone question his wife's credibility too--only at PPP...), the administration admitted that the Niger data should not have been in the SOU address, which supports Wilson's claim.  Didn't Tenet even take the blame?

 

As for "editorials" from conservatives that claim Wilson lied, I can also provide "editorials" that claim he didn't.  For example:

Liars

 

I'm not trying to defend Wilson per se, rather that fact that the right, center, left or whatever can provide us with any slant they want.  Seems to me though, the right is saying Wilson lied, and at the same time saying the administration either exaggerated or "miscommunicated."

 

Can't have it both ways...

481914[/snapback]

 

I don't think the issue is whether wilson is a bad-guy, liar or opportunist, or whether some are gleeful about the prosecution. The fact is that someone did in fact leak the name of a cia operative from the executive branch. That person or persons violated the law for whatever reason, and jeopardized people in the intelligence community.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's the NYT so it must be complete garbage. Looks like Rove and Libby could be indicted for lying to the grand jury. That's what it looks like to me, from this and numerous articles I've read in the last few weeks.

 

As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

 

Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.

 

In Mr. Rove's case, the prosecutor appears to have focused on two conversations with reporters. The first was a July 9, 2003, discussion with Mr. Novak in which, Mr. Rove has said, he first heard Ms. Wilson's name. The second conversation took place on July 11, 2003 with a Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper, who later wrote that Mr. Rove had not named Ms. Wilson but had told him that she worked at the C.I.A. and that she had been responsible for her husband being sent to Africa.

 

Mr. Rove did not tell the grand jury about his phone conversation with Mr. Cooper until months into the leak investigation, long after he had testified about his conversation with Mr. Novak, the lawyers said. Later, Mr. Rove said he had not recalled the conversation with Mr. Cooper until the discovery of an e-mail message about it that he sent to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser. But Mr. Fitzgerald has remained skeptical about the omission, the lawyers said.

 

In Mr. Libby's case, Mr. Fitzgerald has focused on his statements about how he first learned of Ms. Wilson's identity, the lawyers said. Mr. Libby has said that he learned of Ms. Wilson from reporters. But Mr. Fitzgerald may have doubts about his account because the journalists who have been publicly identified as having talked to Mr. Libby have said that they did not provide the name, that they could not recall what had been said or that they had discussed unrelated subjects.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21leak.html

[Taro T]

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's the NYT so it must be complete garbage. Looks like Rove and Libby could be indicted for lying to the grand jury. That's what it looks like to me, from this and numerous articles I've read in the last few weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21leak.html

482146[/snapback]

IF they lied under oath, they should be in jail. Just like the former felon in chief should have been. It's called perjury and should be taken seriously by anyone in the executive branch of the government.

 

If they did not lie under oath, it does not appear to me, based upon what I have been able to read on the subject, that they broke any laws. I'm certain that Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation will close soon. Once it does, we will find out what appears to have really happened.

[GG]

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's the NYT so it must be complete garbage. Looks like Rove and Libby could be indicted for lying to the grand jury. That's what it looks like to me, from this and numerous articles I've read in the last few weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21leak.html

482146[/snapback]

 

 

Heh, looks like we're in for another round of definition of "is."

 

Note that not a single reporter has testified that they first heard about Plame's identity from either Rove or Libby. We probably won't find out until Deep Throat II has alzheimers and his kids need money.

 

BTW, an interesting tidbit in today's WSJ said that while CIA requested an investigation of the leak, it has not conducted a damage assesment on the potential trouble to its operatives that the said leak would have caused, which I understand is standard procedure in all leak cases.

[KRC]

I'm certain that Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation will close soon. Once it does, we will find out what appears to have really happened.

482170[/snapback]

 

I think the grand jury ends its session at the end of this month, IIRC. You will hear by then.

[TPS]

Heh, looks like we're in for another round of definition of "is." 

 

Note that not a single reporter has testified that they first heard about Plame's identity from either Rove or Libby.  We probably won't find out until Deep Throat II has alzheimers and his kids need money.

 

BTW, an interesting tidbit in today's WSJ said that while CIA requested an investigation of the leak, it has not conducted a damage assesment on the potential trouble to its operatives that the said leak would have caused, which I understand is standard procedure in all leak cases.

482171[/snapback]

 

 

From the article:

"In part, the weight of an indictment on leaking classified information could depend on whether the exposure of Ms. Plame caused damage. That isn't clear. Damage-assessment reports commonly are done when such leaks occur, but congressional staffers say they haven't seen any such document related to this investigation.

 

The CIA did produce an initial report to see if assets were in danger or needed to be moved, a government official said. But that didn't take the form of a formal report to Congress, as has occurred in bigger espionage matters."

[Wacka]

 

Note that not a single reporter has testified that they first heard about Plame's identity from either Rove or Libby. 

482171[/snapback]

 

AKA "There is no there there."

[Mickey]

Note that not a single reporter has testified that they first heard about Plame's identity from either Rove or Libby. 

482171[/snapback]

Not quite true, in fact, completely untrue.

 

Judy Miller at first either denied or conveniently forgot, when she testified before the Grand Jury, that she had met with Libby in June of 2003 but changed her tune when the prosecutor showed her Secret Service records showing that she met with him on June 23, 2003. That is when she went back to her notes and discovered that, lo and behold, she had met with Libby. She then went back to the Grand Jury and this is what she had to say:

 

"Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A." Miller

 

So she was told, for the first time, from good 'ol Scooter that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. By the way, Libby also was conveniently unable to recall that this meeting took place until confronted with the Secret Service records that so improved Judy's memory.

 

Elsewhere in her notes the name "Valerie Flame" appears and as to that notation, she stated that she did not know where that came from but that is not the same thing as saying that she doesn't know who first told her that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, she knows she first got that info from Mr. Libby. People are trying to take that "I don't know where that note came from" to mean the same as "I don't know who told me about Wilson's wife being in the CIA". They are not the same.

[Wacka]

Bottom line: Plame wasn't a spy in 2003 . LAW DOESN"T APPLY . Waste of taxpayer $.

 

Get that through your skulls.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Not quite true, in fact, completely untrue.

 

Judy Miller at first either denied or conveniently forgot, when she testified before the Grand Jury, that she had met with Libby in June of 2003 but changed her tune when the prosecutor showed her Secret Service records showing that she met with him on June 23, 2003.  That is when she went back to her notes and discovered that, lo and behold, she had met with Libby.  She then went back to the Grand Jury and this is what she had to say:

 

"Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A."  Miller

 

So she was told, for the first time, from good 'ol Scooter that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.  By the way, Libby also was conveniently unable to recall that this meeting took place until confronted with the Secret Service records that so improved Judy's memory.

 

Elsewhere in her notes the name "Valerie Flame" appears and as to that notation, she stated that she did not know where that came from but that is not the same thing as saying that she doesn't know who first told her that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, she knows she first got that info from Mr. Libby.  People are trying to take that "I don't know where that note came from" to mean the same as "I don't know who told me about Wilson's wife being in the CIA".  They are not the same.

482346[/snapback]

 

Where's the part in all that that says "undercover"? Don't forget, the issue isn't that someone said she works at the CIA - there's nothing at all wrong with saying "so-and-so works at the CIA". The key allegation here is that someone apparently said Plame works (or worked) as an undercover field agent for the CIA.

 

Even if I stipulate everything in your post is true (and I have no reason to doubt you, frankly), you still haven't addressed the allegation.

[GG]

Not quite true, in fact, completely untrue.

 

Judy Miller at first either denied or conveniently forgot, when she testified before the Grand Jury, that she had met with Libby in June of 2003 but changed her tune when the prosecutor showed her Secret Service records showing that she met with him on June 23, 2003.  That is when she went back to her notes and discovered that, lo and behold, she had met with Libby.  She then went back to the Grand Jury and this is what she had to say:

 

"Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A."  Miller

 

So she was told, for the first time, from good 'ol Scooter that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.  By the way, Libby also was conveniently unable to recall that this meeting took place until confronted with the Secret Service records that so improved Judy's memory.

 

Elsewhere in her notes the name "Valerie Flame" appears and as to that notation, she stated that she did not know where that came from but that is not the same thing as saying that she doesn't know who first told her that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, she knows she first got that info from Mr. Libby.  People are trying to take that "I don't know where that note came from" to mean the same as "I don't know who told me about Wilson's wife being in the CIA".  They are not the same.

482346[/snapback]

 

Counselor, it would help if you link the entire article to support your viewpoint, instead of select paragraphs. Look what happens when I do the same,

 

My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative," as the conservative columnist Robert D. Novak first described her in a syndicated column published on July 14, 2003. (Mr. Novak used her maiden name, Valerie Plame.)

 

This is what I told a federal grand jury and the special counsel investigating whether administration officials committed a crime by leaking Ms. Plame's identity and the nature of her job to reporters.

 

.....

 

On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.

 

I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him.

 

Why don't we let the folks here decide for themselves what Judy had to say - Lefty NYT

[Mickey]

Bottom line: Plame wasn't a spy in 2003 . LAW DOESN"T APPLY . Waste of taxpayer $.

 

Get that through your skulls.

482444[/snapback]

Fitzgerald isn't looking just at the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a fact you consistently overlook. For example, there is the Espionage Act which could result in a prosecution of a person who has possession of information relating to the national defense which the person has reason to believe could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and who wilfully communicates that information to a person not entitled to receive it. In addition, Fitzgerald could be looking at obstruction of justice and perjury charges.

 

Your finding of "not guilty" for these freaks is a little premature. Just as permature would be a judgment that they are in fact criminally culpable. Lets see what Fitzgerald has to say. Maybe there will be no charges, maybe there will be lots of charges. I think the political verdict is already in as to whether or not this was a political hatchet job and certainly, the core issue, WMD's and Iraq, is waaaay over, there were none. All that remains to be seen is whether someone is actually going to go to jail over this whole ugly episode.

[Mickey]

Where's the part in all that that says "undercover"?  Don't forget, the issue isn't that someone said she works at the CIA - there's nothing at all wrong with saying "so-and-so works at the CIA".  The key allegation here is that someone apparently said Plame works (or worked) as an undercover field agent for the CIA. 

 

Even if I stipulate everything in your post is true (and I have no reason to doubt you, frankly), you still haven't addressed the allegation.

482471[/snapback]

That might be true if the only allegation is a violation of the IIPA, but that is not the case. The Espionage Act is also reportedly being looked at and, of course, if Libby testified that he didn't tell Miller or anyother reporter that she worked at the CIA when in fact he did, that would be perjury.

 

As for the IIPA, we could exhaust ourselves trying to figure out the nuances of that law. For example, what is crucial here, that she was undercover, that Libby knew she was undercover or once was or that he actually told someone she was undercover? Personally, I wouldn't read the act as requiring disclosing that "Joe Schome is an undercover CIA agent". I would think that it would be enough that Joe Schmoe is an undercover agent, the discloser knew it and told a reporter that "Joe Schmoe is a CIA agent". We could pick that law into pieces for days.

[Wacka]

Fitzgerald isn't looking just at the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a fact you consistently overlook.  For example, there is the Espionage Act which could result in a prosecution of a person who has possession of information relating to the national defense which the person has reason to believe could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and who wilfully communicates that information to a person not entitled to receive it.  In addition, Fitzgerald could be looking at obstruction of justice and perjury charges.

 

Your finding of "not guilty" for these freaks is a little premature.  Just as permature would be a judgment that they are in fact criminally culpable.  Lets see what Fitzgerald has to say.  Maybe there will be no charges, maybe there will be lots of charges.  I think the political verdict is already in as to whether or not this was a political hatchet job and certainly, the core issue, WMD's and Iraq, is waaaay over, there were none.  All that remains to be seen is whether someone is actually going to go to jail over this whole ugly episode.

482575[/snapback]

 

Well the CIA didn't go ape s*** over this so there is likely nothing that applies to the Espionage Act. Isnt the Act I mentioned a modification of the Espionage Act? You guys are grasping at straws wanting to get anything on the bush Admin. Wht do you think Rove has had a s*** eating grin evrey time I have seen him leaving the courthouse? Maybe he is telling the truth and has nothing to worry about. You are jumping to the conclusion that he is a target, not merely a witness.

 

Freaks? I find a President that uses a cigar as a sex toy and finishes himself off in the bathroom sink of the oval office a freak. Someone who debates "is" is a freak. Someone who burns down a compound in Texas full of women and children is a freak. Someone who sends a machine gun toting person into a private house to illegally grab a child in an asylum case is a freak.Someone who take bags of campaigh check from a person with Chinese govt. ties in the White House is a freak.

 

The following is OT to the thread, but is in reply to your second to last sentence:

 

You still think there were no WMDs? Saddam just destroyed all the poison gas that he killed the Kurds with? If he destroyed all of them, why would he refuse to allow inspectors free access? That led to his being on trial today. There were massive amounts oftruck traffic going to Syria in the weeks before the war. People with knowledge say that most of WMDs are in the Bekka valley in Lebanon. Some of the material that Kadafi turned over in Libya had the UN inspectors tags from Iraq still on them! Kadafi has told us that Iraq was doing most of their nuclear research in Libya. All of the microbes and viruses that they were using for their weapons program could be put o dry ice or in a few liquid nitrogen flasks in the back of a panel truck. In fact, at a stratup I was at, I carried all the bacteria we had in an ice chest in my car when we were moving to our pemanent location.

[Ghost of BiB]

Well the CIA didn't go ape s*** over this so there is likely nothing that applies to the Espionage Act. Isnt the Act I mentioned a modification of the Espionage Act?  You guys are grasping at straws wanting to get anything on the bush Admin.  Wht do you think Rove has had a s*** eating grin evrey time I have seen him leaving the  courthouse? Maybe he is telling the truth and has nothing to worry about. You are jumping to the conclusion that he is a target, not merely a witness.

 

Freaks?  I find a President that uses a cigar as a sex toy and finishes himself off in the bathroom sink of the oval office a freak. Someone who debates "is" is a freak. Someone who burns down a compound in Texas full of women and children is a freak. Someone who sends a machine gun toting person into a private house to illegally grab a child in an asylum case is a freak.Someone who take bags of campaigh check from a person with Chinese govt. ties in the White House is a freak.

 

The following is OT to the thread, but is in reply to your second to last sentence:

 

You still think there were no WMDs? Saddam just destroyed all the poison gas that he killed the Kurds with?  If he destroyed all of them, why would he refuse to allow inspectors free access? That led to his being on trial today.  There were massive amounts oftruck traffic going to Syria in the weeks before the war. People with knowledge say that most of WMDs are in the Bekka valley in Lebanon.  Some of the material that Kadafi turned over in Libya had the UN inspectors tags from Iraq still on them! Kadafi has told us that Iraq was doing most of their nuclear research in Libya.  All of the microbes and viruses that they were using for their weapons program could be put o dry ice or in a few liquid nitrogen flasks in the back of a panel truck.  In fact, at a stratup I was at, I carried all the bacteria we had in an ice chest in my car when we were moving to our pemanent location.

482610[/snapback]

 

Did you wash your hands real good before you ate lunch?

[EC-Bills]

Did you wash your hands real good before you ate lunch?

482628[/snapback]

 

I don't think so. Just look at his thumb in his avatar.

[Campy]

Bottom line: Plame wasn't a spy in 2003 . LAW DOESN"T APPLY . Waste of taxpayer $.

 

Get that through your skulls.

482444[/snapback]

Whether she was a "spy," or her status (as far as being covert vs overt) doesn't matter.

 

What matters is whether it potentially harmed US interests. Get that through your thick partisan skull.

[Campy]

Well the CIA didn't go ape s*** over this so there is likely nothing that applies...<snip>   

482610[/snapback]

If you don't care whether US interests are harmed, whether senior level officials perjured themselves (a felony), or obstructed justice (another felony), you're more of a lemming than I've ever given you credit for.

 

Wake up man. It's serious business, not a partisan game. Perhaps there was no wrongdoing. Or perhaps there was. The CIA sent a "crime report" to DOJ for investigation. That speaks volumes. It should make any person with half a brain realize that there may be something funny going on.

 

But either way, it is hardly a "waste of tax payer dollars" to determine if a crime was committed- especially one of this magnitude. We're not talking about shady land deals and blowjobs in the oval office here.

 

And remember, it was John "where the eagle soars" Ashcroft who appointed Fitzgerald as the investigator. Surely he wouldn't waste your money, you being lock-step and barrel with the GOP and all...

 

Thinking people should want to get to the bottom of this, which may very well explain why you don't.

[GG]

If you don't care whether US interests are harmed, whether senior level officials perjured themselves (a felony), or obstructed justice (another felony), you're more of a lemming than I've ever given you credit for. 

 

Wake up man.  It's serious business, not a partisan game.  Perhaps there was no wrongdoing. Or perhaps there was.  The CIA sent a "crime report" to DOJ for investigation.  That speaks volumes.  It should make any person with half a brain realize that there may be something funny going on.

 

But either way, it is hardly a "waste of tax payer dollars" to determine if a crime was committed- especially one of this magnitude. We're not talking about shady land deals and blowjobs in the oval office here.

 

And remember, it was John "where the eagle soars" Ashcroft who appointed Fitzgerald as the investigator.  Surely he wouldn't waste your money, you being lock-step and barrel with the GOP and all...

 

Thinking people should want to get to the bottom of this, which may very well explain why you don't.

482812[/snapback]

 

I think if we step back from the partisanship, and analyze the case on the merits alone, I don't know how far this thing should go.

 

I was not kidding when I said we're in for another round of definition of "is." If you want the obvious answer, yes I think it was prosecutorial overreach of Orwellian magnitude to spend $ millions to investigate a sitting President's business dealings a decade before he became President, with the only tag that could be placed on him being an inopportune spillage of man butter.

 

While I'm certain that headlines will trump up national security complications caused by Libby & Rove conversations, in all likelihood the actual charges will be some sort of obstruction of justice. This would make an interesting continuation of prosecutorial offensive when investigators are determined to obtain a charge, no matter whether an underlying crime was committed or not.

 

Ask anyone on the street why Martha Stewart went to jail, and I'll bet my house that the vast majority of responses will be "Insider Trading." Few realize that she was brought up on obstruction of justice charges, and insider trading wasn't even part of the indictment.

 

Which leads to the natural question of the propriety of bringing up obstruction of justice charges when there is no apparent underlying crime to which obstruction occurred. (As a corollary, I haven't for the life of me still figured out the connection between a bj & a land deal.)

 

There is the natural response, "A crime is a crime, and needs to be prosecuted." But, when the prosecutor is a direct participant in the "crime scene," perhaps we should temper our excitement over such crimes.

 

We also have to look at the ramifications of these cases. Despite the inanity of the Clinton case and the serious concern that it was taking some of his time away from the real job of being President, there was the constant pressure to continue the investigation, which had nothing to do with his Presidency. We now know that there were many things missed on his watch, and I certainly don't want to think that all these externalities contributed to the inaction, but it's certainly in the back of my mind.

 

Similarly, there's an equally vocal tide coming from the left, in the name of national security and justice. To me, it's not so much the issue of Rove & Libby's guilt, but springback retribution for what was done to Clinton. You don't have to go far in the blogosphere to find the "Finally we got them" posts.

 

Whoopie. Hooray. Let's feel happy about taking down key national advisors in the time of a national crisis.

 

If we are really concerned about carrying out the justice, what should we say about a prosecutor who's spent nearly two years investigating serious charges about national security, but now appears to bring up charges on Rove & Libby because they didn't tell him which reporters they spoke with at which time?

 

I'm sure his fellow prosecutors are thrilled with the developments of this & Martha's cases. The script is set, if a prosecutor comes knocking on your door, the only answer is, "5th Amendment."