Friday AM Quik-Blog
I have a lot to do this morning - I was told yesterday that my class would be cancelled today, and as fortune would have it, I got a call yesterday afternoon about an internship available right on the route between school and home. So I have an 11am interview, and I still need to iron my nice pants. Damn. I hate ironing. I can never get that nice crease down the front. I would have had them dry cleaned, but I have no time now.
Anyway, I'm a little confused as to why people think that Bob Woodward coming out and saying he was told about Valerie Plame a month before Bob Novak opened his gaping maw is somehow beneficial to the Bush administration. Have memories become so short that they've forgotten Scooter has been charged with perjury, giving false information and obstruction of justice. That means he got in the way of the investigation into the leak and tried to throw the dogs off the scent. It doesn't mean HE was the one who leaked the info, so dust off your hands and go home.
Woodward coming out now and revealing that he had an interview with a senior White House official about Plame, her identity and her work with the CIA over 17 months ago (according to this article, Patrick Fitzgerald was tipped off to Woodward's knowledge by his original source, which has not been revealed at this time) simply means that if there was only one person who leaked Plame's name to the press, he couldn't keep his mouth shut since her identity was revealed to MANY reporters (Novak, Cooper, Miller, and now Woodward).
Others are also still pointing to the fact that Fitzgerald is still investigating and hasn't indicted anyone with charges related directly to the act of leaking a CIA operative's name. As a student in the paralegal field, I already understand the amount of time and effort that goes in to building a case, even when all parties involved agree on most of the points, but disagree with some theories. In this case, you had at least Scooter being a clown and intentionally throwing out roadblocks to hinder the investigation. So I have no doubt that go through mountains of paperwork, scheduling depositions, and compiliing any and all evidence is incredibly time consuming.
I have no doubt that Fitzgerald is building his case very carefully, and we haven't seen the last of him. So buckle up, kiddos, there's more to come.
Anyway, I'm a little confused as to why people think that Bob Woodward coming out and saying he was told about Valerie Plame a month before Bob Novak opened his gaping maw is somehow beneficial to the Bush administration. Have memories become so short that they've forgotten Scooter has been charged with perjury, giving false information and obstruction of justice. That means he got in the way of the investigation into the leak and tried to throw the dogs off the scent. It doesn't mean HE was the one who leaked the info, so dust off your hands and go home.
Woodward coming out now and revealing that he had an interview with a senior White House official about Plame, her identity and her work with the CIA over 17 months ago (according to this article, Patrick Fitzgerald was tipped off to Woodward's knowledge by his original source, which has not been revealed at this time) simply means that if there was only one person who leaked Plame's name to the press, he couldn't keep his mouth shut since her identity was revealed to MANY reporters (Novak, Cooper, Miller, and now Woodward).
Others are also still pointing to the fact that Fitzgerald is still investigating and hasn't indicted anyone with charges related directly to the act of leaking a CIA operative's name. As a student in the paralegal field, I already understand the amount of time and effort that goes in to building a case, even when all parties involved agree on most of the points, but disagree with some theories. In this case, you had at least Scooter being a clown and intentionally throwing out roadblocks to hinder the investigation. So I have no doubt that go through mountains of paperwork, scheduling depositions, and compiliing any and all evidence is incredibly time consuming.
I have no doubt that Fitzgerald is building his case very carefully, and we haven't seen the last of him. So buckle up, kiddos, there's more to come.
by MG at 8:04 AM
17 Comments:
Speaking of Fitzgerald.
The man is everywhere!
Feds indict Black
Ex-Hollinger chief charged with fraud
..A federal grand jury indicted Hollinger International Inc.'s ousted chief executive, Conrad Black, on criminal fraud charges, alleging he and a handful of other former insiders used sham transactions to improperly pocket tens of millions of dollars that belonged to the media company.
At Hollinger, the owner of the Chicago Sun-Times and other papers, Black and a cadre of other company officials were legally obliged "to safeguard the shareholders," U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald said at a press conference.
But instead, he continued, they "made it their job to steal and conceal."
What happened at Hollinger represents the "grossest" type of abuse by corporate officials, Fitzgerald said.....
...Black owns dozens of newspapers around the world, including the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator newspapers in London, the Jerusalem Post, and the Chicago Sun-Times....
Moxie,
"if there was only one person who leaked Plame's name to the press, he couldn't keep his mouth shut since her identity was revealed to MANY reporters (Novak, Cooper, Miller, and now Woodward)."
I think your missing the signifigance of this development. As I was trying to say when this case broke, Libby's defense will be based on his state of mind when he made the false statements. He's going to say it was common knowledge, everyone was talking about it, and he simply forgot who said what when. The fact that Woodward is coming forward and essentially corroborating this fact will go a long way towards at least creating a reasonable doubt.
This is a bad development for Fitz, and I wouldn't expect any new indictments when the only one he has is already looking weaker...
Considering that Woodward is coming out now, and that several of the reporters now are contradicting each other, it does seem it'd be harder to convince a jury of a iron-clad story line in any of this. If OJ can muddle his way out of murdering two people, I suspect Libby's attorneys have a good chance of using all the contradictions to muddle themselves out of far less serious charges. I also doubt there'll be an IIPA indictment, simply because of all of this confusiion, and the fact that any defendant in that case will be able to call Toensing as a witness in his defense.
What's interesting, though, that I've noticed now is that newspapers all talk about the outing without using the term "alledged". If I cap someone on live videotape in front of twenty witnesses, I'm still just the "alledged" murderer until I'm convicted. Why isn't this same standard applied in this case? Either the press doesn't believe there was a crime comitted (highly unlikely), or the press are getting lazy when they cut and paste their DNC talking points into articles (much more likely).
Something I haven't heard mentioned by anyone in the "news" media or elsewhere is that it is common sense that Libby [or Rove & Libby] did not just leak this to try to discredit Wilson on a whim of their own, that since his wife's status was classified, as a covert C.I.A. agent (and furthermore it makes the Bushites look very petty and vindictive to try to "discredit" someone who was correct because they don't like being diagreed with) it must have been approved from higher up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this goes higher than Libby and Rove, that Cheney and Bush must have approved it beforehand. Certainly he/they wouldn't have leaked this just as some crazy idea they came up with themselves and not run it by their bosses first considering the gravity of the matter, they definitely got it approved first regardless of where the idea originated. Otherwise, the first thing Bush and Cheney would've done when the leak story first broke so long ago would have been to find out quickly who leaked it and fire them, thereby distancing themselves from an unauthorized action of an underling. The damage-control measures would have been over in a week or two and they would have understandably pinned it all on the leaker(s) who acted on such an important matter without consulting them first. Heads would've rolled, and quickly. But they didn't; first they tried to say that they KNEW nobody connected to the White House had anything to do with it, then later said if someone did then they'd be fired, then later going back on that even, and when Libby was indicted they grudgingly accepted his resignation all the while praising him for what a great job they thought he'd done in his service to them. This sounds not like dealing with an insubordinate underling who went out on his own and leaked this like the "news" media tacitly implies by not ever asking "Did Bush and Cheney approve this leak?", but instead like the actions of an administration that authorized this leak from the top, didn't think it would come back on anybody, and when it did they are reluctant to point the finger at Libby because they're afraid if they do so he'll spill the beans about who authorized him to leak it in the first place. Once again, America's corporate-owned mass "news" media lets us down.
This in no way weakens Fitz's case against Libby. Libby wasn't indicted for leaking. He was indicted for lying, and the 5 indictments against him are air tight. Libby's lawyers can try to spin it any way they want to, this is not good news for libby.
The whole point of the Libby indictment was that he had impeded the investigation. Fitz made clear that he didn't know everything he needed to know about the case. That is why he indicted Libby for perjury and obstruction.
Fitz has convened a new GJ over the new revelations, as he plans to seek even more indictments for other crimes.
Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings
In a sign he may seek new or revised charges in the CIA leak case, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said on Friday his investigation would be going back before a grand jury.
It was the first time Fitzgerald said he would be presenting information to a grand jury since the indictment three weeks ago against Vice President Dick Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
The investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative, which has reached into the highest levels of the White House, could be moving into a new phase that could lead to charges against other top administration officials.
Lawyers in the case have said President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, remained under investigation and could still be charged....
eDog,
The outing of Plame was a crime. It was not an alleged crime. Just as a murder is not an alleged murder. No one has been charged with leaking illegally, but both Libby and Rove, through their lawyers have acknowledged "leaking" to reporters Valerie Plame's identity. They both assert that the manner in which they did so were not violations of the IIPA. That may be true, as no one is charged with it, but they have both nonetheless admitted leaking her identity as a cia agent to reporters. It's no longer alleged if your attorney confirms it as true.
It's no different than someone being brutally murdered and the police prove through DNA and other evidence who the killer is. The person arrested's attorney acknowledges that his client did in fact kill the victim but through an arcane loophole in the law that person cannot be convicted of the crime.
The murder was not an alleged murder. That person who killed her is still a murderer, even though he will never be convicted for it.
Val Plame's cia identity was leaked to the press. Libby and Rove are two of the leakers.
I don't see any reasonable doubt though my admittedly liberal-colored glasses, Brash.
What Libby lied about doesn't change just because Woody spoke to someone else about it in a previous timeline. And I'm intrigued by your statement that tossing around an undercover CIA agent's name is "common knowledge".
I'm more intrigued by the fact that they were talking about Joe Wilson's wife before he even wrote the Op-Ed piece. And Woody's testimony is one of many that backs that up.
You what else it would back up (if Woody's source is truly Hadley)? Conspiracy - the very heart of this investigation that could very well bring the White House down. Not a proud moment in American history for either party, might I add...
The irony of this story on this pressing issue is that everyone gets hung up on the legal details and misses the point about ethics in journalism!
Bob Novak's Plame article was based on a story intentionally feed to him by insiders to decredit Wilson. But Bob is supposed to be an objective reporter, and he should have reported the true story: Administrative insiders were leaking classified information in order to discredit a critic. Instead, he carried water for the administration. So argues Carl Bernstein (the remaining ethical former partner of the WaPo dynamic Watergate duo) in October Vanity Fair.
Likewise, Woodward was not reporting what he really knew, and even attacked the Plame investigation as "much ado about nothing", calling Fitz a "junkyard dog", even though Woodward was inside from the getgo.
This is not simply a legal issue: It is an ethics issue for journalists! Are they not supposed to be un-biased observers and reporters of the truth?
Thanks a lot Bob! Feeding your audience more confusion! Ya know, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation, but only one mess-up to destroy it forever. Bob, cash in your book deals, and retire to Barbados. Don't forget the Sunscreen!
Sans,
You're wrong on so many levels it boggles my mind. I don't even know where to start. For instance, the article you linked, that guy is an alleged murderer. He did not "get off on some technicality", he hasn't even stood trial yet. Second, the only thing remotely close to what your claiming would be getting off a murder conviction on the basis of a legal excuse (duress for example). You have still committed a crime, but you are let off based on the circumstance under which is occured. That has nothing to do with this case though.
I'm not even gonna waste my time correcting the rest of your post, just please never make any legal statement again. I want you to keep some of your dignity.
Nicho,
I don't think you really understand the charges against Libby. The fact that he said what he said is not in dispute, it's what his state of mind was when he said it that turns the case. The fact that lots of people said lots of things about Wilson's wife goes to the fact that Libby could have been confused about who said what. If he made a mistake, rather than attempted to conceal or lied, then he gets off...
There are many reasons why a person can confess to a crime and not be prosecuted for it - failure to Mirandize or as was pointed out, under duress. I didn't read the example because I don't have to, I know the law. But the point here is that both Rove and Libby have admitted to the crime. Whether they can be held criminally responsible in a court of law for so doing remains to be seen. However, there can be no doubt the republican adminsitration will be held accountable by the voters next November and two years hence. Cheney would have the same chance as O.J. and for the same reason.
All this footballing about "resonable doubt" and so forth is nothing more than desperate attempts to hold onto the magic and the fantasy by the zealots with their own personal little visions that this bunch of exposed political gangsters have incorporated in their promises so that all the fringe elements would support them. That's the 34% that is still hanging on hoping for a miracle and trying to convince themselves. Trying to convince anyone else is a waste of time.
Let me give you a little known piece of history that puts the whole CIA leaking episode in the right perspective.
They were trying to expose Plame before her husband ever said a public word. The final stroke of getting it published in the news was killing two birds with one stone.
I doubt many of you are aware of what occurred because there was never enough corroboration to make it public, but during the period after Saddam went into his hole in the ground and the frantic search for the WMD began, the war gang attempted to smuggle in under the radar some materials they could "find" that would establish that Saddam did, in fact, have chemical WMD. Plames group was involved in preventing/exposing it. No one outside the involved has the whole story or enough facts, but it was reported and it happened and Cheney was livid about it. This was during the time that the news media was coddling the administration and presented it simply as a line type item. (sorry mox I don't have the cites, check the NYT)
If you know this, it makes everything fall into place with the time lines including Woodward and all the rest. The primary target was Plame. She was the real danger to them.
HA!
Real nice SEAL. Was this before or after she blew the lid off of Bush's secret meetings with Aliens?
Also, I know you claimed once to be a lawyer, but getting off becuase you weren't read your rights, and getting off becuase of duress are about the two most different things you could have come up with. Stick to the conspiracy theories...
Obviously, limpburg, you still deliberately misquote. I never said that failure to mirandize and obtaining a confession under duress were the same thing. What I did say was there are many reasons and used those as only two.
Also, I never claimed to be a lawyer, I said I was a JD which I am. So keep throwing all your vast legal knowledge out there, boy, and rave on about how it makes a difference to the people of this country whether these guilty and confessed bastards can be prosecuted in court or not. The people will get 'em at the voting booth and if the dems regain control of congress next year you can start waving bye-bye to the whole crew.
Ok Brash,
You seem to be smart enough to not misunderstand so badly what I said. My point was not a legal one so much as it was based on convention in the media and in common speech in regards to a crime.
The murderer story I linked to is a perfect analogy. It happened right down the street from me. The man who did it apparently knows no language skills whatsoever (nevermind he can roof and frame houses and fixes small engines) so he cannot be judged competent to stand trial. Nevermind that he cried and acted out the crime charades style on seeing her picture right on our local tv news. His own attorney on the news conceded that his client did kill the girl. Nevermind that his DNA and a store video links him to the crime, he cannot stand trial.
He was released recently, and he appears to have a license to kill.
I'm pretty sure he needs a place to stay. Maybe he can come stay with you since you don't think he is a murderer. I'd like to see you tell her daddy that he shouldn't be so upset that her killer was set free because his daughter wasn't really murdered.
You'd get the shit stomped out of you.
In my response to eDog's "I've noticed now is that newspapers all talk about the outing without using the term "alledged"."
The obvious fact is, that the crime, the "leak", has in fact occurred. Duh! That's why tenet asked DOJ to investigate it in the first place. When someone is shot to death no one refers to the deceased as the alleged murder victim. They refer to the any suspect as alleged until proven guilty, yes, but not that was not what eDog said.
It was not an alleged outing, she was outed. The legal lingo may have to refer to the crime as alleged, but no press story ever refers to the crime in this manner.
Rove Told Reporter of Plame's Role But Didn't Name Her, Attorney Says
Washington Post
There was a leak.
Rove leaked.
Duh!
a crime? maybe, maybe not.
Brash - If you are a lawyer, as you so obviously parrot your vast legal knowledge, you aren't a very good one. "State of mind"? So are you suggesting that Libby is going to plead insanity?
That would sarcasm in cased you missed it.
And I'm sorry for taking a personal swipe at you. But I'm starting to feel a bit justified in doing so since you have no issues taking swipes at everyone else who disagrees with you. In that respect, you're a perfect Republican.
OK, if we're going to get into looking at this thing from the standpoint of law, I will explain what Fitzgerald is doing. He is using the "ladder" principle. Cheney is the target of Fitzgerald's investigation. He is on the top rung of the ladder.
They start at the bottom of the ladder, establishing an indefensible amount of evidence against the lower rung -- which is currently the case with Libby -- and use that as leverage to work their way up to the next level, and so-on.
Many pundits have suggested that Libby is taking one for the team and will get pardoned. Not so, Libby is really fighting for his life. He may have lied to protect Cheney. But the reality is that Fitzgerald has Libby in a strangle-hold position where he will need to turn against everyone, including Cheney and Rove, in order not to face lengthy jail time. Insiders say Libby and the White House are not talking anymore. They have parted ways and Libby will eventually be testifying against them. The blueprint strategy for Fitzgerald, believes that Libby will strike a plea deal with Fitzgerald either right before or during the trial.
Their ladder has many potential rungs who will, most probably be let off the hook in exchange for their testimony against the two people Fitz is really after. It is doubtful that anyone else besides Rove and Cheney will bear the full brunt of prosecution.
Libby's plea deal with Fitzgerald will bring in others who will help indict Rove. From there, Rove will be in a position where he will need to accept a plea deal that will help indict Vice President Dick Cheney. That this is how Fitzgerald's team and most prosecutors operate. "Laddering."
Cheney will use the excuse that he has health problems as the cover reason behind a decision to resign soon. Everyone on the inside expects this to happen within a few months. Not only because of Fitzgerald, but because they are certain the Republicans are going to go against the White House and get most of the troops out of Iraq before next November's elections. They will steal Murtha's plan, make it their own, and ballyhoo themselves as the heroes who got us out of the war thinking that will save the party in the upcoming elections.
The Republican Senators and Congressmen will dump the White House like a bad habit and label them the bad guys in order to save their own asses. If it works they will allow Bush to finish his term minus Rove and Cheney and dancing to their tune. If it doesn't and the dems gain control of both houses, Bush will be impeached.
Slightly off topic, but probably the main obstacle to the Democrats winning a majority in the House and Senate is that so pitifully few of the races are actually in competitive districts. I don't think someone can honestly call this a democracy when very few real election battles occur to decide who are our "elected" representatives in Congress. Perhaps the answer is an objective, non-partisan redistricting across the whole country to create a lot more competitive districts instead of the way it is now with a majority of Congressional districts where one party or the other may as well not even field a candidate. That, and then at the presidential election level we need to shitcan the artificial "electoral college", and maybe, just maybe the United States could be a real, legitimate, functioning democracy worthy of being proud of instead of a sham. But that would require thinking about things that make most Americans' eyes glaze over in boredom, throw up their hands because it's "too complicated", as if every problem in life can be dumbed down to a twenty-second sound bite.
Post a Comment
<< Home