OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[Flasch186]

well Clinton got tore up over moral indiscretions and now we have this. pot kettle. however, while Clinton shouldnt have done what he did, neither should Rove now and he does not deserve a free pass like some on the right want.

[JW]

The memo is most interesting; however, the Washington Post is making an implication that may not be correct. The paragraph would have been marked secret to note that something in the paragraph was classified, but that something may not necessarily have been Plame's identity. And the Post story is carefully worded not to say that Plame's identity was the classified information in question, though the writers make the implication in a 'we report, you decide' manner. What else in the paragraph could have been classified? Well, we don't know, since we don't have the paragraph.

Additionally, the story quotes Rove's lawyer as saying that Rove never saw the memo until the special prosecutor's office showed it to him. However, if it can be shown Rove did see the memo earlier, then he certainly has a problem.

My guess is that the memo is not going to turn out to be a smoking gun, at least not against Rove. But I still think the investigation may turn up some surprises. Has Colin Powell been questioned yet?

As an additional point, what should be done to the people who leaked this classified information to the Washington Post? Did they commit a crime?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

As an additional point, what should be done to the people who leaked this classified information to the Washington Post? Did they commit a crime?

I think you are grasping at straws in that first paragraph, but yes, they did commit a crime by leaking classified information. However, the Post will not reveal who they are so they are safe, the way it should be. How it differs from the Rove case is that the people who leaked the memo were fighting those in power while Rove was using his position of power to smear a political operative that was telling the truth (assuming he is guilty). The former is the point of a free press, the latter is the antithesis of the press' job.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think you are grasping at straws in that first paragraph, but yes, they did commit a crime by leaking classified information. However, the Post will not reveal who they are so they are safe, the way it should be. How it differs from the Rove case is that the people who leaked the memo were fighting those in power while Rove was using his position of power to smear a political operative that was telling the truth (assuming he is guilty). The former is the point of a free press, the latter is the antithesis of the press' job.

Oh, I'm not grasping at straws. The Post writers were very careful never to say that Plame's identity was what was classified. One would assume the writers asked their sources that question. If the Post writers knew that Plame's identity was the classified element, don't you think they would have told us that rather than dancing around it? So that lack of clarity raises my suspicion. But I'm not saying that Plame's identity was NOT the classified element; I'm just saying the Post article never says it was.

As to Rove smearing a political operative who was telling the truth, Wilson has been far from truthful in several instances, as reported in multiple sources. Neither Rove nor Wilson are angels.

Finally, the leakers of the memo, whoever, they are, may have motives different from what you and I think they are. This could get even more complicated than it already is.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

More fun....

More fun....

Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters

By Richard Keil

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.

These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by JW

Neither Rove nor Wilson are angels.

But yet it's Rove still puttering around in the White House, dealing with classified sensitive information day in and day out.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

More fun....

More fun....

Now this is very interesting, and where I think this case is truly headed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Now this is very interesting, and where I think this case is truly headed.

If Libby told Fitzgerald one thing, and Rove told him another, I wouldn't want to be either one of them right now. This guy is tenacious, as both former Il governor George Ryan and Chicago Mayor Daley can attest.

[gstelmack]

Gee, do you believe the lying politician, or the lying reporter? Hmmm...

(Given the number of missteps by the media over the last few months, and their personal interest in how this turns out, I don't trust any of the sides in this fiasco).

[JW]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

But yet it's Rove still puttering around in the White House, dealing with classified sensitive information day in and day out.

Agreed. I think I've made my dislike for Rove very clear. But that doesn't make him guilty of any wrongdoing in the Plame leak. Fitzgerald, unlike many on the left, will work toward the truth, not toward a lynching. When the truth comes out, it may well be that Rove will be charged with something, though I doubt it, but I honestly think there will be some surprises when the results of the investigation are announced. Libby, for example, might have more to worry about than Rove.

[flere-imsaho]

A new rehash of the available with a couple more tidbits: link

Such as:

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper has written that he was told by Karl Rove on July 11 "don't get too far out on Wilson" because information was going to be declassified soon that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and findings. Cooper also wrote that Rove told him that Wilson's wife worked for the agency on weapons of mass destruction and that "she was responsible for sending Wilson."

The article's author doesn't draw any conclusions himself, but the article seems to confirm that Rove & Libby were leaking the information. It also appears that Miller's source was Libby, and thus her testimony is very important, which is why Fitzgerald is pressing so hard for it.

Also, new info here on the guy likely to be Fitzgerald's new boss. McCallum is an old friend of Bush & Cheney.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I saw some speculation recently (that I don't think was posted here) that Miller may have been part of the problem, rather than someone caught in the crossfire. The speculation was that Miller was Libby's source, as opposed to vice versa.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I saw some speculation recently (that I don't think was posted here) that Miller may have been part of the problem, rather than someone caught in the crossfire. The speculation was that Miller was Libby's source, as opposed to vice versa.

I saw that as well. I've also seen articles that cast a lot of doubt about Miller's journalistic integrity when she was in Iraq. These shouldn't be hard to Google, and I'm too lazy to re-find them and post them here.

The morass keeps on getting deeper. I'm glad I'm not Fitzgerald.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I saw that as well. I've also seen articles that cast a lot of doubt about Miller's journalistic integrity when she was in Iraq. These shouldn't be hard to Google, and I'm too lazy to re-find them and post them here.

Be careful with these, though. Miller's reporting in the lead up to the Gulf War was very pro-Bush, so she's public enemy #1 for many on the left. Take anything you read about her (especially from blogs or personal sites) with a huge grain of salt.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Be careful with these, though. Miller's reporting in the lead up to the Gulf War was very pro-Bush, so she's public enemy #1 for many on the left. Take anything you read about her (especially from blogs or personal sites) with a huge grain of salt.

I know all about that. I could have sworn I saw a few "mainstream" articles that were more objective.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I saw some speculation recently (that I don't think was posted here) that Miller may have been part of the problem, rather than someone caught in the crossfire. The speculation was that Miller was Libby's source, as opposed to vice versa.

Yes, I have heard talking head speculation that she may be refusing to talk to protect herself rather than a source, but who knows.

[flere-imsaho]

Update: Judith Miller has been released from prison and will testify, after receiving an OK from her source, Scooter Libby, V.P. Cheney's Chief of Staff.

Which is interesting.

Full article from NYT:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - Judith Miller, the reporter for The New York Times who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released Thursday from a Virginia detention center after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor in which she would testify before a grand jury investigating the case, the publisher and the executive editor of the paper said.

Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the inquiry. Her decision to testify was made after she had obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. Ms. Miller said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, they said.

Discussions between officials and journalists that week that may have disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Wilson, have been a central focus of the investigation.

Ms. Miller said in a statement that she expected to appear before the grand jury on Friday. Ms. Miller was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony.

The publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller's decision, just as it had backed her refusal to testify.

"Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

For more than a year, Mr. Fitzgerald has sought testimony from Ms. Miller about conversations she had with Mr. Libby. Her willingness to testify now was in part based on personal assurances given by Mr. Libby this month that he had no objection to her discussing their conversations with the grand jury, according to those officials briefed on the case.

Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation has centered on whether anyone in the Bush administration illegally disclosed to the news media the identity of Ms. Wilson, a C.I.A. employee. The first published reference to Ms. Wilson was in July 2003 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

Another important question has been whether officials were truthful in their testimony to investigators and the grand jury.

Ms. Miller never wrote an article about Ms. Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has said that obtaining Ms. Miller's testimony was one of the last remaining objectives of his inquiry, and the deal with her suggests that the prosecutor may soon end the long-running investigation. It is unknown whether prosecutors will charge anyone in the Bush administration with wrongdoing.

The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intense negotiations among her; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald.

The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone this month as their lawyers listened, according to people who have been briefed on the case. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.

The discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate's asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to another lawyer for Ms. Miller, Floyd Abrams, more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case.

Other people involved in the case have said Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from Mr. Libby directly.

Ms. Miller authorized her lawyers to seek further clarification from Mr. Libby's representatives in late August, after she had been in jail for more than a month. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September saying he believed that her lawyers understood during discussions last year that his waiver was voluntary.

On Sept. 16, Mr. Tate wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald saying his conversations with Mr. Abrams last year were meant to assure Ms. Miller that a broad waiver that Mr. Libby signed in late 2003 was not coerced and applied specifically to Ms. Miller.

On Thursday, Mr. Abrams wrote to Mr. Tate disputing parts of Mr. Tate's account. His letter said although Mr. Tate had said the waiver was voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver sought as a condition of employment was inherently coercive.

Mr. Tate said in an interview on Thursday, "Her lawyers were provided with a waiver that we said was voluntary more than a year ago." Mr. Abrams would not discuss the question in a brief telephone conversation on Thursday.

As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett gave Mr. Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Ms. Miller about her conversations with Mr. Libby.

In statements on Thursday, Ms. Miller and executives of The Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Ms. Miller's lawyers had sought such an assurance as a condition of her testimony.

Mr. Keller said Mr. Fitzgerald cleared the way to an agreement by assuring Ms. Miller and her source that he would not regard a conversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstruction of justice.

According to someone who has been briefed on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes that his statements show he did nothing wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during their conversations in July 2003 whether he knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to discuss the conversations.

Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Libby did not know her name or her position at the agency and therefore did not discuss these matters with Ms. Miller, the person who had been briefed on the matter said. Ms. Miller said she believed that the agreement between her lawyers and Mr. Fitzgerald "satisfies my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources."

"I went to jail," she added, "to preserve the time-honored principle that a journalist must respect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source. I chose to take the consequences, 85 days in prison, rather than violate that promise. The principle was more important to uphold than my personal freedom. "

Ms. Miller said she was grateful for the "unwavering support" shown by her husband, family and friends and The Times. She said that she would say nothing more publicly about the case until after her grand jury testimony.

Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment, a spokesman, Randall Samborn, said.

The case has been the most significant test in decades of whether reporters can refuse to disclose to prosecutors their discussions with confidential sources. Many journalists say those sources would refuse to provide information if their anonymity could not be protected.

At least four other reporters are known to have provided information to Mr. Fitzgerald. But Ms. Miller had until refused to do so. In July, the Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal of a lower court order that she be jailed for contempt for her refusal to testify.

When Mr. Wilson emerged as a critic of the Bush administration in July 2003, administration officials questioned his credibility. The column by Mr. Novak said Mr. Wilson's wife, who worked for the agency, had suggested the trip.

New details about the case have emerged in recent months. Karl Rove, the president's senior political strategist, and Mr. Libby both discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters, according to testimony provided by Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, and by others.

But neither White House official is known to have mentioned Ms. Wilson by name or to have mentioned her status at the C.I.A.

Mr. Cooper testified in August 2004 about a conversation with Mr. Libby conducted in 2003. But Mr. Cooper had resisted a subpoena to appear before the grand jury to discuss a conversation with Mr. Rove.

In July, after his employer, Time Inc., part of Time-Warner, complied with a subpoena seeking his notes from the period, Mr. Cooper agreed to testify, after seeking and obtaining what he called a specific waiver from Mr. Rove, releasing him from a pledge of confidentiality.

That decision left Ms. Miller alone in resisting the prosecutors' demand to testify. Much about Ms. Miler's role remains unclear. Mr. Keller, the executive editor, has declined to say whether she was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she tried to write an article about it or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at The Times that she had obtained information about Ms. Wilson's role.

Under the terms of her jailing, Ms. Miller faced incarceration through the duration of the current term of the grand jury hearing the case, and that is due to expire on Oct. 28. Had Ms. Miller continued to resist, lawyers involved in the case said they believed that it was highly likely that Mr. Fitzgerald would have tried to keep her in jail by extending the grand jury term or convening a new grand jury.

Ms. Miller had been housed at the Alexandria Detention Center, a county jail in suburban Virginia. As a federal prisoner, Ms. Miller was an exceptional case. But a spokesman for the sheriff's office, which administers the center, said she had been granted no special privileges.

[MalcPow]

Probably worthy of a new thread, and from what I'm reading a really bizarre turn of events. There has to be more to what's going on here, but the political calculus is beyond me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Two new reports today say that Bush was furious with Rove two years ago when Rove told him that he was the source of the leak (not furious that he leaked the info, but rather how it was bungled), and also that Bush told Fitzgerald a year ago that he had no idea where the leak came from. If both reports are correct, the Prez may be in some legal trouble. Here is McClellan trying to discredit the Bush furious thing at todays WH press meeting:

QUESTION: Scott, is it true that the President --
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Welcome back.

QUESTION: Thanks. Is it true that the President slapped Karl Rove upside the head a couple of years ago over the CIA leak?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Are you referring to, what, a New York Daily News report? Two things: One, we're not commenting on an ongoing investigation; two, and I would challenge the overall accuracy of that news account.

QUESTION: That's a comment.

QUESTION: Which part of it?

QUESTION: Yes, that is.

QUESTION: Which facts --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: No, I'm just saying -- no, I'm just trying to help you all.

QUESTION: So what facts are you challenging?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: You can't say you're challenging the facts and then not say which ones you're challenging.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Yes, I can. I just did. (Laughter.)

...

QUESTION: Scott, let me come back to -- so you say you're challenging the accuracy, but you won't tell us why. Why would it be irresponsible for us to report that?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Report what?

QUESTION: What you said --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: It's up to you what you want to report. I'm just trying to --

QUESTION: Well, if you want us to say it's inaccurate, you need to give us a reason why, or it wouldn't be responsible to report it.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, there's an ongoing investigation, and as you know, our policy is not to comment on it. So that's where we are.

QUESTION: You just did.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Based on your personal knowledge, based on your opinion, based on your frustration with the story -- what caused you to say that?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: No, I mean, I read the story and I didn't view it as an accurate story.

QUESTION: Why not?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to go any further than that. There's an ongoing investigation. This is bringing up matters related to an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: After you read the story, Scott, did you check with either the two people mentioned, the President or Rove, to ask them? Is that what you base --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I don't have any further comment, Peter.

QUESTION: Well, is that what you base your guidance on, or is it just -- you know, is it just you're feeling that this couldn't have happened?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I stand by what I just said and I'm going to leave it at that.

Man, does it suck to be McClellan right now.

What happens if the President and VP both have to resign? Is it the same order of succession as if they were assassinated?

[Flasch186]

Arles...cant say I didnt tell you that this was a comin. it aint over.....follow the smoke to the fire, and what do you expect to find? Well I know you, if you dont get a smaple of the fire, check that it actually is fire, and then have someone admit to starting the fire, then you dont admit that there is a fire at all.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Two new reports today say that Bush was furious with Rove two years ago when Rove told him that he was the source of the leak (not furious that he leaked the info, but rather how it was bungled), and also that Bush told Fitzgerald a year ago that he had no idea where the leak came from. If both reports are correct, the Prez may be in some legal trouble. Here is McClellan trying to discredit the Bush furious thing at todays WH press meeting:


Man, does it suck to be McClellan right now.

What happens if the President and VP both have to resign? Is it the same order of succession as if they were assassinated?

If you think anyone higher than Rove is going to resign over this, you're on crack. I doubt even Rove resigns, and there is no chance the President will be investigated on this.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If you think anyone higher than Rove is going to resign over this, you're on crack. I doubt even Rove resigns, and there is no chance the President will be investigated on this.

Hey, he's entitled to his fantasies.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If you think anyone higher than Rove is going to resign over this, you're on crack. I doubt even Rove resigns, and there is no chance the President will be investigated on this.

There are rumors going around Washington that Cheney might resign. Bush can't be indicted (only impeached, and that's not going to happen), but thanks to Clinton v. Jones a sitting President can be involved in a civil matter. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Bush could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator like Nixon was and/or taken to civil court by the Wilsons to recover damages from ending her carer.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Hey, he's entitled to his fantasies.

Question: if Bush is shown to have lied to a federal investigator, lied to the American people (especially through Scott McClellan), all in covering up a federal crime, would that change your opinion of him as a non-waffling straight shooter?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Question: if Bush is shown to have lied to a federal investigator, lied to the American people (especially through Scott McClellan), all in covering up a federal crime, would that change your opinion of him as a non-waffling straight shooter?

Maybe, maybe not. The Clinton mess didn't change my opinion of him.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There are rumors going around Washington that Cheney might resign. Bush can't be indicted (only impeached, and that's not going to happen), but thanks to Clinton v. Jones a sitting President can be involved in a civil matter. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Bush could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator like Nixon was and/or taken to civil court by the Wilsons to recover damages from ending her carer.

Yeah, I heard about the Cheney rumors. Did he resign, though? No. Rumors in Washington is about as reliable as "Worldnetdaily." I know you like to sit in a corner and touch yourself thinking that "justice will prevail" but wake up to the real world. Bush is not going anywhere, Cheney is not going anywhere (unless God strikes him down) and most likely Rove isn't going anywhere. Not that they don't deserve to, it is just that they hold all the cards. This is not big enough to permanently hurt any of them.

[flere-imsaho]

A lot of people are getting wound up over unsubstantiated rumors. It's somewhat amusing and somewhat disheartening to see some of the left wing sites take the speculation as far as they have.

A lot of things could still happen and, as I've said before, we still won't know until Fitzgerald actually does something (publishes a report, indicts people, etc....).

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This is not big enough to permanently hurt any of them.

I see this, and then I think of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. You either have to laugh, or cry.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I see this, and then I think of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. You either have to laugh, or cry.

Like I said, the world is not fair. Of course, Lewinsky actually made Clinton more popular. I think he sends Christmas cards to Ken Star.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I know you like to sit in a corner and touch yourself thinking that "justice will prevail" but wake up to the real world.

This is why I come here, for intelligent debate

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A lot of people are getting wound up over unsubstantiated rumors. It's somewhat amusing and somewhat disheartening to see some of the left wing sites take the speculation as far as they have.

It's not just left wing sites:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index....73670266741691

When I started to read about the possibility on right wing sites, I started to really take it seriously.

EDIT: More from a conservative site:

To me, Bush's public statements on this are paramount. Yes, what he said to the prosecutors is legally crucial---and as reported in this piece by Murray Waas, Bush stated to prosecutors in June 2004 that Rove had assured him he was not involved with the Plame leak. If both DeFrank's and Waas' reports are true, this president could be in extremely serious trouble. But here's what I really want to know: did this president stare into a camera and lie about this to the American public? My definitive, lasting memory of Bill Clinton is the finger-wagging "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." After the past few years, how insignificant and silly that all seems now, eh?

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2...n-and-now.html

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is why I come here, for intelligent debate

Eh, it wasn't part of the debate. It was more a "wake up" line. You sometimes have a clear grasp on things, and have very good, solid post. But sometimes you "chase the rainbow." Just trying to reel you in a bit. Hug?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's not just left wing sites:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index....73670266741691

When I started to read about the possibility on right wing sites, I started to really take it seriously.

EDIT: More from a conservative site:



http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2...n-and-now.html

That isn't close to being on par with the number of Democrats that came on national television after the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement that said if Clinton had an affair with her "he'll have to resign." Clinton survived. Bush has a much greater advantage over Clinton because,

a) His party has control of both houses, and

b) the American public could care less about this story. The Lewinsky story had "traction" because it was about sex. When the news starts reporting on this story, you literally hear millions of tv sets turning to "Wheel of Fortune." There is nothing sexy here.


Further, how would Bush resigning help matters? If he and Cheney both quit today (and they are ice skating in Hell), who would be President? Denny Hastert. We'd be better off with Bushy.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That isn't close to being on par with the number of Democrats that came on national television after the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement that said if Clinton had an affair with her "he'll have to resign." Clinton survived. Bush has a much greater advantage over Clinton because,

a) His party has control of both houses, and

b) the American public could care less about this story. The Lewinsky story had "traction" because it was about sex. When the news starts reporting on this story, you literally hear millions of tv sets turning to "Wheel of Fortune." There is nothing sexy here.

I agree with this Americans have short attention spans on the whole, unless it involves something sexy....Karl Rove is anything but.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That isn't close to being on par with the number of Democrats that came on national television after the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement that said if Clinton had an affair with her "he'll have to resign." Clinton survived. Bush has a much greater advantage over Clinton because,

a) His party has control of both houses, and

b) the American public could care less about this story. The Lewinsky story had "traction" because it was about sex. When the news starts reporting on this story, you literally hear millions of tv sets turning to "Wheel of Fortune." There is nothing sexy here.


Further, how would Bush resigning help matters? If he and Cheney both quit today (and they are ice skating in Hell), who would be President? Denny Hastert. We'd be better off with Bushy.

I think the possibility is extremely remote that Bush would ever resign, even if he were named as an unindicted co-conspirator. He would probably only ever do it under threat of impeachment, and with congress the way it is now that is extremely unlikely.

Cheney is a definite possibility to resign, if he is indicted. They would probably put Rice into the VP role, so overall it's a pretty good PR move. Rove I think is all but assured to be gone, I think. All his fundraising trips were cancelled, and damage control coming out of the White House is just not the same as it has been, leading me to think that they are distancing themselves from Rove.

As for the public caring less about the story, something must be driving GOP numbers down all across the board, and not all of it, but I am sure some of it are the numerous indictments and arrests that are becoming just impossible to keep track of.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

As for the public caring less about the story, something must be driving GOP numbers down all across the board, and not all of it, but I am sure some of it are the numerous indictments and arrests that are becoming just impossible to keep track of.

It is the economy, stupid. Paying $3 dollars a gallon at the pump does not make people happy about the Oil Man and his cronies running things.





ps. Not calling you stupid. Just quoting the political mantra.

[Flasch186]

uh oh...were getting closer to the all important for Arles, verbage from the horse's mouth, to admit wrongdoing. I feel sorry for the right, trying to defend the behavior of the leadership......Delay, Frist, now this coming to fruition...



Cheney told top aide of CIA officer: report

11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff first learned about the
CIA officer at the center of a leak investigation in a conversation with Cheney weeks before her identity became public in July 2003, The New York Times reported on Monday.

Notes of the conversation between chief of staff Lewis Libby and Cheney on June 12, 2003, put a spotlight on the vice president's possible role in the leak. The account also appears to run counter to Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he first learned about the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, from reporters.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor investigating the leak of Plame's identity, is said by lawyers involved in the case to be considering bringing charges against Libby for making false statements and possibly obstruction of justice.

Another possible target for indictment is Karl Rove,
President George W. Bush's top political adviser. Fitzgerald's announcement is expected later this week.

Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Wilson based the criticism in part on a CIA-sponsored mission he made to Africa in 2002 to check out an intelligence report that Iraq sought uranium from Niger.

Cheney's office had sought more information about the uranium deal, prompting the CIA to dispatch Wilson.

Eager to distance the vice president from Wilson's mission and findings, Cheney's office began looking into Wilson's background in May or June of 2003, after details of his mission began to appear in the press but well before he came out publicly in July 2003 with his criticisms, people close to the investigation said.

Libby's notes indicate that Cheney got his information about Plame from George Tenet, who was then the CIA director, according to the Times, which attributed its report to lawyers involved in the case.

According to the Times, the notes do not show that Cheney knew the name of Wilson's wife. But they do show that Cheney did know and told Libby that she was employed by the CIA and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Randall Samborn, Fitzgerald's spokesman, declined to comment.

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride would only say, "We're cooperating fully, as the president and the vice president directed us."

A former intelligence official close to Tenet said the former CIA director has not been in touch with Fitzgerald's staff for over 15 months and was not asked to testify before the grand jury.

"Mr. Tenet does not wish to make any comments regarding an ongoing investigation," the former intelligence official said.

[Ksyrup]

Admittedly, I haven't been following this story very closely, but I saw a clip of Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Meet the Press that made me want to punch her right in the dick. She said the following: "I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality..."

Fuck you, bitch.

Perjury is perjury, be it about blowjobs or revealing CIA operatives. I simply can't believe she would say something like that, given the Clinton impeachment. Politicians fucking suck.

You guys know I'm a conservative, but even I won't put up with shit like this. I haven't followed this story close enough to know if someone deserves to be indicted for perjury, but if they are and it's proven, they will get no sympathy from me.

[JW]

Since I was very much involved in this argument at the start, I will just say now that it seems to me that if they have anything, it is focused on Libby and perjury. I'll venture a prediction that if there are any charges, and I'm still not sure there will be any, that it will involve Libby and not Rove, and that it will not be the major charge of blowing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, but something like perjury. Looks to me like Libby lied. Although I have to say it looks like Rove really tried to play a game with the truth, too, so an indictment of Rove would not shock me.

And, once again, I detest Rove. I think he has hurt the country.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Admittedly, I haven't been following this story very closely, but I saw a clip of Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Meet the Press that made me want to punch her right in the dick. She said the following: "I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality..."

Fuck you, bitch.

Perjury is perjury, be it about blowjobs or revealing CIA operatives. I simply can't believe she would say something like that, given the Clinton impeachment. Politicians fucking suck.

You guys know I'm a conservative, but even I won't put up with shit like this. I haven't followed this story close enough to know if someone deserves to be indicted for perjury, but if they are and it's proven, they will get no sympathy from me.

Her statements now are especially bad given what she said about Clinton (she voted to impeach):

"Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed to be untrue, and must relate to a material matter....[If] President Washington, as an adult, had been warned not to cut down a cherry tree, but he cut it down anyway, with the tree falling on a man and severely injuring or killing him, with President Washington stating later under oath that it was not he who cut down the tree, that would be `perjury.' Because it was a material fact in determining the circumstances of the man's injury or death. Some would argue that the President...should not be impeached because the whole thing is about a cherry tree, and lies about cherry trees, even under oath, though despicable, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution. I disagree. The perjury committed...was an attempt to impede, frustrate, and obstruct the judicial system in determining how the man was injured or killed, when, and by whose hand, in order to escape personal responsibility under the law, either civil or criminal. Such would be an impeachable offense. To say otherwise would be to severely lower the moral and legal standards of accountability that are imposed on ordinary citizens every day. The same standard should be imposed on our leaders...Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is `capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider...The President's testimony before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious."

[Ksyrup]

She had it right the first time.

She can argue that whatever perjury charge might come out of this is not perjury - that's fine. But to argue perjury in and of itself is a technicality...she should be ashamed of herself. And I'd say that even if she hadn't been so outspoken on Clinton.

[Flasch186]

would that be considered a "flip flop". It disgusts me, the dbl. standard. Her word play is remiscient of the wordplay the Pres. she slamed used to define "sex" which is hung out like a flag on the front lawn. Garbash!!

[Flasch186]

the board is "satisfied" with the job you are doing as manager......usually precedes what?



White House Sidesteps Cheney Questions

33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday sidestepped questions about whether Vice President
Dick Cheney passed on to his top aide the identity of a
CIA officer central to a federal grand jury probe.


Notes in the hands of a federal prosecutor suggest that Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, first heard of the CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday's editions.

A federal prosecutor is investigating whether the officer's identity was improperly disclosed.

The Times said notes of a previously undisclosed June 12, 2003, conversation between Libby and Cheney appear to differ from Libby's grand jury testimony that he first heard of Valerie Plame from journalists.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation and we're not having any further comment on the investigation while it's ongoing," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Pressed about Cheney's knowledge about the CIA officer, McClellan said: "I think you're prejudging things and speculating and we're not going to prejudge or speculate about things."

McClellan said Cheney — who participated in a morning video conference on the Florida hurricane from Wyoming, where he is speaking at a University of Wyoming dinner tonight — is doing a "great job" as vice president.

The New York Times identified its sources in the story as lawyers involved in the case.

Libby has emerged at the center of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation in recent weeks because of the Cheney aide's conversations about Plame with Times reporter Judith Miller.

Miller said Libby spoke to her about Plame and her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, on three occasions — although not necessarily by name and without indicating he knew she was undercover.

Libby's notes show that Cheney knew Plame worked at the CIA more than a month before her identity was publicly exposed by columnist Robert Novak.

At the time of the Cheney-Libby conversation, Wilson had been referred to — but not by name — in the Times and on the morning of June 12, 2003 on the front page of The Washington Post.

The Times reported that Libby's notes indicate Cheney got his information about Wilson from then-CIA Director George Tenet, but said there was no indication he knew her name.

The notes also contain no suggestion that Cheney or Libby knew at the time of their conversation of Plame's undercover status or that her identity was classified, the paper said.

Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.

The Times quoted lawyers involved in the case as saying they had no indication Fitzgerald was considering charging Cheney with a crime.

But the paper said any efforts by Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Cheney might be viewed by a prosecutor as attempt to impede the inquiry, which could be a crime.

According to a former intelligence official close to Tenet, the former CIA chief has not been in touch with Fitzgerald's staff for more than 15 months and was not asked to testify before the grand jury even though he was interviewed by Fitzgerald and his staff.

The official told the Times that Tenet declined to comment on the investigation.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return phone calls and e-mail to his office.

Fitzgerald is expected to decide this week whether to seek criminal indictments in the case. Lawyers involved in the case have said Libby and Karl Rove,
President Bush's senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment. McClellan said both Rove and Libby were at work on Tuesday.

Fitzgerald questioned Cheney under oath more than a year ago, but it is not known what the vice president told the prosecutor.

Cheney has said little in public about what he knew. In September 2003, he told NBC he did not know Wilson or who sent him on a trip to Niger in 2002 to check into intelligence — some of it later deemed unreliable — that
Iraq may have been seeking to buy uranium there.

"I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back," Cheney said at the time. "... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him."

The Cheney-Libby conversation occurred the same day that The Washington Post published a front-page story about the CIA sending a retired diplomat to Africa, where he was unable to corroborate intelligence that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The diplomat was Wilson.

A year after Wilson's trip, President Bush cited British intelligence in his State of the Union address as suggesting that Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

McClellan said Cheney — who participated in a morning video conference on the Florida hurricane from Wyoming, where he is speaking at a University of Wyoming dinner tonight — is doing a "great job" as vice president.

.

Originally Posted by Dubya

Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job!

[Flasch186]

**Cough** **Cough**

Arles steps to the podium

"Due to the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald announced the indictments, and Mr. Libby has not come out to admit that he did anything wrong...no matter the outcome of the investigation or subsequent trial, Libby and the administration will be shown as 'cleared' in the Arles Quarterly. As you all know, unless the criminal admits to their wrongdoing you cannot trust what you hear, see, or read. Its all too skewed by politics to be true unless you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thank you."



Libby worked with Cheney a long long time!!! a long time......Cheney didn't know what was going on this whole time? During the obstruction of justice, the Perjury (Clinton must be smiling now - although outing an undercover CIA operative who now has been shown to actually BE classified and not some pseudo-undercover, like the right argued for awhile is much worse than trying to lie your way out of a BJ)......

I feel so vindicated and the Rove is still yet to come. Gosh I wish I could bring up all the times Ive been right....

[st.cronin]

What's funny about that is that the Vice-President's actual job is ... well, breaking ties in the Senate. Has Cheney had to do that? I would bet he hasn't. I would bet he hasn't done a day of work with regards to his constitutional responsibilities.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

**Cough** **Cough**

Arles steps to the podium

"Due to the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald announced the indictments, and Mr. Libby has not come out to admit that he did anything wrong...no matter the outcome of the investigation or subsequent trial, Libby and the administration will be shown as 'cleared' in the Arles Quarterly. As you all know, unless the criminal admits to their wrongdoing you cannot trust what you hear, see, or read. Its all too skewed by politics to be true unless you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thank you."



Libby worked with Cheney a long long time!!! a long time......Cheney didn't know what was going on this whole time? During the obstruction of justice, the Perjury (Clinton must be smiling now - although outing an undercover CIA operative who now has been shown to actually BE classified and not some pseudo-undercover, like the right argued for awhile is much worse than trying to lie your way out of a BJ)......

I feel so vindicated and the Rove is still yet to come. Gosh I wish I could bring up all the times Ive been right....

I think you are being a bit tough on Arlie, but I get what you are saying. I'm still waiting for the specifics, the details about what specifically Libby apparently lied about or tried to cover up are what I'm curious about. I think those details will be telling. As for Plame's identity shown to actually BE classified....I thought we were still waiting for the definitive word on that.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think you are being a bit tough on Arlie, but I get what you are saying. I'm still waiting for the specifics, the details about what specifically Libby apparently lied about or tried to cover up are what I'm curious about. I think those details will be telling. As for Plame's identity shown to actually BE classified....I thought we were still waiting for the definitive word on that.

During Fitzgerald's press conference he made it clear, almost going overboard, that not only was her identity classified but that it was also NOT widely known who she worked for. Id say, if were taking his word with some weight, instead of waiting for the trial...then we should be leaning towards what Ive been saying all along, that she was "outed".

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

During Fitzgerald's press conference he made it clear, almost going overboard, that not only was her identity classified but that it was also NOT widely known who she worked for. Id say, if were taking his word with some weight, instead of waiting for the trial...then we should be leaning towards what Ive been saying all along, that she was "outed".

Then why wasn't Libby charged with that? Or was he? I haven't seen the full list of charges, but all I've heard is lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

[Flasch186]

he used an analogy that an umpre trying to see the playhad sand thrownin his eyes...which i interpretted to mean that he got distracted when trying to clear through the muddied waters that Libby and the journalists stirred up.....which I why i think he insinuated that he wasnt done with the investigation and that more charges could be coming.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

**Cough** **Cough**

Arles steps to the podium

"Due to the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald announced the indictments, and Mr. Libby has not come out to admit that he did anything wrong...no matter the outcome of the investigation or subsequent trial, Libby and the administration will be shown as 'cleared' in the Arles Quarterly. As you all know, unless the criminal admits to their wrongdoing you cannot trust what you hear, see, or read. Its all too skewed by politics to be true unless you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thank you."

Even when I am not posting in a political thread I am still a participant. I feel like Al in the Godfather "[e]very time I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in!"

In all seriousness (and without reading to this point), it seems Libby has forgotten the Cardinal rule in politics - never lie during the investigation. Atleast Rove had enough sense to go back to the Grand Jury and "clear up" his comments before he could be indicted. Either way, I won't shed a tear if Libby goes down. He should have been smarter than that given what he witnessed with Clinton.