Well Larry, lets just add it this one to the long laundry list here...

~OGD~

Note to Josh Marshall.

Your name is at the top of the masthead. Larry Johnson, with his jokes about prison rape, has entered Ann Coulter territory. Time to rein in the nutjobs.

All Bush has to do is pardon Scooter and it's all over.

Larry, two Senior Senators have already publicly said they want to call Libby as a witness to testify about the relationship between OVP and the DOD Office of Special Plans headed by Feith. Levin suggested a public hearing, and said he would subpoena Libby if he did not volunteer. Rockefeller's interest is a little more specific, and he suggests major testimony would be executive, with perhaps a public performance. Rocky believes the OSP is a criminal violation of the 1947 National Security Act, which gives only Congress the power to establish and create commission for an Intelligence Agency, and thus the OVP's involvement in establishing the OSP could be criminal.

I feel sure that after today Libby preversely likes being found guilty, and he will take this opportunity to ignore the subpoena, and thus get some counts of Contempt piled upon his lies and Obstruction convictions. And contempt of congress works a little like contempt of court, and just as Judy had to spend long hours in the Alexandria Jailhouse, Libby could be looking at something similar from which even a Bush Pardon might not be able to free him. Likewise, I doubt if Bush can cover him with Executive Privilege at this point. In fact I think in some wierd basement corner of the Capitol there is actually a congressionally controlled cell for the use of those being held in Contempt. Hasn't been used in ages, but maybe they could dust it off.

Wouldn't be nice, if more charges will be filed after Bush leaves office, with no chance of pardons?

TJ, your noxious and ignorant argument about Plame's status has been refuted ad naseum on other threads.

The CIA sent the case to the DOJ, and the DOJ appointed a Special Prosecuter. Since it is impossible to "leak" a name if a name is public knowledge, I guess we should trust the CIA to know what Plame's status, as a protected person was. (I would tend to trust them more than you, anyway)

The law governing this has such a high bar (it must be proven that the leaker knew and willingly gave out protected information) that it is virtually impossible to prosecute even though it is obvious to any person with more than 3 brain cells that these people knew exactly what they were doing.

That is why the leakers didn't get prosecuted; not because Plame's identity was not protected. For the last time:
If Plame was not a protected source, the CIA would have had NO justification for reporting her outing, and you can bet that John (Let the Eagle Soar) Ashcroft would certainly NOT have apointed Fitzgerald.

Since the people in the White House are free to spread any secret information that they want to, as long as they can then say they didn't know it was secret (what a law!)I guess we should all sleep better now. Maybe at least they will know that they shouldn't lie about it to an FBI agent and then to a Grand Jury...or maybe not.

Well, pardon me!

Jan Knaus

BABBLE, BABBLE, BABBLE;... "not covert" "not covert" "not covert" HONK, HONK, HONK, "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton".... SPIN, SPIN, SPIN;
"No underlying case, no underlying case, no underlying case" BAWK BAWK BAWK.

If the "no underlying case" was a valid defense why didn't Libby's lawyers use it? Maybe its something they can base their appeal on.

Martha Stewart went to jail for a few of the same reasons Libby now stands convicted of, obstruction and lying to investigators, and guess what..... there was 'no underlying case' as no one was indicted for insider trading.

Ken Starr went after Bill Clinton for any number of charges, Vince Foster's death, Travelgate, Ron Brown's death, China/Satellites, rape, for which there was no underlying crime
(except in the warped minds of the wingnuts). Starr finally got Clinton on Monica.

I'm sure a case can be made that there was also "no underlying case" in the Clinton perjury fiasco.

Obviously the "rule of law" is only important when the Republicans are going after a Democrat.

Please answer the question.

sPh

Why do the hardliners like TJKing always argue that Plame didn't have protected status? I've read a number of such posts, none of which contained any documation that proved she wasn't. On the other hand, the pro-Plame comments rely on the fact the CIA asked for an investigation. That supposedly proves the case because if it wasn't true, the CIA wouldn't have been asking for the investigation. OK, it convinced me but why rely on deductions to prove a point?
Plame's status has to be on file someplace. Why doesn't that settle matters? Is it that her file is still classified even after her identification? When the CIA asked for the investigation, did it identify her by name or what?
Just curious.

So 5 years later, it's been proven in a court of law that Libby lied to someone about something concerning the plamegate story, although Libby's lawyer claims he's completely innocent still. If we impeach Cheney for something he did in 2002, it would mean that he was left in power for 6 or 7 years before he was reprimanded. It kind of defeats the purpose of removing someone from power via impeachment although the humiliation will remain with him forever. It's still unbelievable to me how slow these rotten teeth are being pulled.

Artappraiser, here's a link to the Wilson's support group website.  I think some of your questions are addressed. As I understand it, the support group is soliciting contributions to cover legal expenses now.  If there is a remedy involving a money award, those awards will be used to pay off legal expenses, and an amount equal to the contributions the support group raises will go to the Wilson's Trust to be distributed to charitable groups working for whistleblower defense issues. Anything above that will go into the Wilson's pockets, I assume.

Also, don't forget TPM Muckraker's report from last June. There's a link to a copy of the actual suit, as filed (It has since been amended to include Armitage).

Neoboho

Even the jurors all but admitted that Libby was a Cheney/Rove fall guy.

TJoKING- ha ha ha

Another stellar example of the intellect and truth-standards of rabid
wingnuttia.

One has to wonder how we will ever reestablish a reasonable dialogue in the public forum with foamers like TJ running loose. I suspect the best strategy of all (and the most likely to induce hopefully fatal bouts of foaming) would be to ignore and refuse to respond to their stupid, or as Jan says, "noxious and ignorant" arguments.

I mean really, what is the use of trying to reason with people who have abandoned all standards of reasonableness? Whether it's the White House "fixing the facts around the policy" or TJoKERS failing to adapt their rantings to well-established fact, we're all just talking past one another here, as if we were speaking different languages. TJoKING would never in a million years give up his fairy tale about Plame not being covert in the face of facts. And with that handy little lie he can dismiss all other consideration of what's at issue in this case.

You know how when you walk past a raving homeless person on the street and he's trying to engage you in a discussion about UFO's or something obviously beyond your perceptive abilities, outside your ken, you smile and nod and perhaps throw a couple of bucks his way out of concern for his well-being, but you resist being drawn into conversation because you know there is no common ground of understanding to be gained. In a forum like this here at TPM it might just be best to give the loonies a wide berth. Reacting to their fairy tales just encourages them and gives credence to their foaming.

Unfortunately, we have to be a little more proactive when the lying loonies occupy positions of power and control. While prosecuting Scooter is a step in the right direction, striking a small blow for truth and the rule of law (which, by the way, depends entirely upon society's commitment to establishing truth through reasonable means), it strikes me that until we who still value the truth as primary replace the liars in power, all discourse is futile, more of a tomato fight than an exchange of ideas.

There simply is no point in arguing with them unless they agree to abide by some reason-based system of judging the truth, whether it's TJKING or George Bush.

The same crowd that relished the partisan impeachment of Clinton is now calling for a pardon for Scooter Libby.

Fatuous, amoral hypocrites.

HRW Report on Male Prison Rape

As Aaron MacGruder might say, "Read Dummy!" Making jokes about this very brutal element of our society is stupid and offensive. Do you really want to be that guy wishing that someone gets raped? Even Scooter Libby?

The CIA referral regards "disclosure of information". It does not mention Plame, nor does it mention the IIPA law. CIA sends dozens of these referrals every year and only a few make it to indictment. The argument that if CIA requests an investigation, we should just skip a trial and go straight to the electric chair based on the divinity of the Agency is truly a scary assertion coming from the left.

One place where I think you and I agree (I think), is that there should be an investigation to prove if she was covert or not. The trial is over. Why can't they say it. Fitz is negligent not to say so definitively. Not an investigation into the crime, just have congress tell us once and for all, was she or not. They won't do it, because she is not covert.

My guess is Conservatives will be arguing for the truth to come out and the left will be arguing to move on. That alone will tell you the confidence of each side about the veracity of the claim. LJ, is already mumbling that it is too secret, which is the first time he has tried this trial balloon. I think it proves he falls under the category of "please don't let the truth come out".

"...Starr finally got Clinton on Monica.

I'm sure a case can be made that there was also "no underlying case" in the Clinton perjury fiasco...."

That is exactly what the left spent a year arguing. They claimed that since Paula Jones case had temporarily been thrown out, that it was not lying about a material fact, so they said not perjury so they claimed it was perfectly legal. In fact they did news magazine specials about how lying is actually good, sometimes to spare feelings or what if someone had an affair and they were sorry, why divulge it and break up a family. Lying was a saintly act back then.

Not lying was demonic in the 90s.

"...Obviously the "rule of law" is only important when the Republicans are going after a Democrat..."

When the Jones case resumed, the so called "material fact" defense was moot.

Clinton did lie. His admission of guilt resulted in his dibarrment and paying the fines.

Is that true that Starr filed rape charges against Bill Clinton for his sexual assault on Juanita Broderick? I was not aware of that.

If the support fund is there to help whistleblowers, is there any money set aside for Armitage or is it only for leakers that lie about the President like Wilson?

Today, Pat Buchanan, admitted Nazi-admirer, and right-wing louse next to none, asks (reasonably):

"why has the Democratic Congress, on taking power in January, not begun a broad investigation into how we got into this war?"

This is something I want to know too. And all the excuse-makers and apologists for the Democratic Party can line up and tell us how fine the Democrats in power are, and we still cannot get a meaningful investigation into the criminal actions of the Bush gang. Excuse me, but Democrats once again live up to their gutless billing.

Buchanan suggests an answer. I do not know if I buy it, but the Democrats sure act like they are either playing politics or have something themselves to hide. Here is what Buchanan says:

"This is the dog that didn't bark. And the reason the dog is silent suggests itself. The Congress, in voting President Bush the authority to take us to war against Iraq at a time and place of his own choosing, failed to do its duty by the Constitution. In October 2002, to get the issue off the table for the election and give themselves political cover against the Rovian charge they were tying the hands of the commander in chief in the War on Terror, a Democratic Senate -- Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Biden, Reid all assenting -- voted Bush the blank check for war that he cashed in five months later.

The dilemma a Democratic Congress faces in any investigation into whether we were lied into war is that Congress would be investigating why a Democratic Senate failed its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war. "

Is he onto something?

Bush can pardon for anything relating to a particular event or for any crimes prior to the date of the pardon.

For instance, Clinton gave one such pardon to Marc Rich who among other things was a middleman for Saddam Huseein's Oil for food bribery scheme to corrupt the UN. Clinton was approached by Marc Rich's wife. Who recomended that Clinton could be easily convinced?

Marc Rich's attorney made the recommendation to Mrs. Rich. The Attorney was I. Scooter Libby.

One comment I'd like to make on the prison rape jokes -- I agree; they are not funny.
But many men didn't really understand how serious the rape of a woman was until male prison rapes came to light. Overnight it seemed to me, men realized that sex without consent isn't fun. Or funny.

That said...
People like TJKing really don't want to know the truth. They have talking points; one of them is questioning whether Valerie Plame was covert. If one listened carefully, Fitzgerald confirmed that she was.

Here's how people like TJKing post:
"The argument that if CIA requests an investigation, we should just skip a trial and go straight to the electric chair based on the divinity of the Agency is truly a scary assertion coming from the left."

A scary asertion "coming from the left" is that "we should just skip the trial and go straight to the elecric chair"?!!?
I beg your pardon?

A factual scarey assertion from the right is that perjury and obstruction of justice are irrelevant crimes.

And before I hear, yet again, the only excuse Republicans have for anything -- "Clinton did it!" -- here are the facts:
Ken Starr presented charges to a Grand Jury, who refused to indict the defendant. So Ken Starr went to the GOP Congress.

Pat Fitzgerald presented charges to the Grand Jury and they, in contrast, turned out five felony counts. Then a jury of our peers convicted the defendant.
Now... WHO had the "weak" case?

I know a Republican won't be able to see the subtle difference, but when Ken Starr couldn't get a indictment, nevermind a conviction, he went to his friends.
Now that regular people convicted a Republican in a court of law, perjury and obstruction of justice are suddenly quaint concepts.

From everything I hear from "the buzz" among my co-workers, etc., if the GOP keeps downplaying this case, they are to continue to wear that 2006 corruption label well into 2008 -- eh, as in November of 2008.

I heard a legal analyst on the tube yesterday ...

Did the legal analyst happen to be Victoria Toesing? (ahem)

~OGD~

Rocky believes the OSP is a criminal violation of the 1947 National Security Act, which gives only Congress the power to establish and create commission for an Intelligence Agency, and thus the OVP's involvement in establishing the OSP could be criminal.
******************************************

I have to agree that this sounds kind of silly, Howard. Follow this theory out to its logical conclusion and none of the branches of the armed forces would be able to gather intelligence without specific authorization from Congress.

Jan

Its Alice in Wonderland. If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?" She wasn't covert. :)

Nice diversion to link Oil-For-Food corruption to Clinton, but it'd be more accurate to link Marc Rich with the Iran hostage crisis.

Good one, Beavis.

While the wingnut armchair legal experts come out of the woodwork with their novel theories and hand waving, it's important to remember the Big Picture--at its core, this case was about the Niger 'yellowcake' documents, which noboby can dispute as being blatant forgeries.

I was linking pardons with Libby, Clinton just happened to see a scandal and choose to jump on board, as is his way.

Pardon doesn't really do much to the civil case. Emptywheel has lots of good analysis on this issue over at The Next Hurrah (will require some digging in the archives, but it's worthwhile).

I'm passing on the merits of the civil case, but you're correct in the above. One just needs to look at the OJ Simpson case. He was found Not guilty in a criminal court, but lost in the ensuing civil case.

=== Is possible that those members of the jury (not The Jury) who expressed astonishment were just drama queens who had trouble remaining focused on the narrow case before them? ===

From what has been revealed publicly about the jury deliberations (and take those accounts with a grain of salt), it was just the opposite: the jury had no doubts on the 4 counts they convicted on, but wondered why Cheney and Rove weren't _also_ on trial. Not an "OR" but an "AND".

And they expressed sympathy for Libby being the fallguy while ALSO expressing sorrow that he had clearly committed a crime. Not an "OR" but an "AND".

Not that SFC... I mean Al... I mean our lovable TJ will accept that.

sPh

From the Washington Post Editorial March 07, 2007

"Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson".

Mr. Wilson never claimed that he was sent by the Vice President and, Mr. Wilson's wife was never in the decision making orbit regarding the trip to Africa. Why is the Washington Post indulging in propagating these falsehoods?

one summary of the jury's press conference:

Jury Describes Decision as Hard but Inevitable
By ERIC LIPTON, New York Times

and note that for those who have more time and don't trust reporters' summaries, the article also furnish a link to the complete transcript of the conference in the menu at left. :-)

Yes. You are to understand that I agree with the right-wing turd on this. One reason I voted for the Democrats was that I thought Pat Roberts was a Bush flunky and I wanted the causes, the lies, the abuses of Bush Cheney brought into the open so they would not happen again and corrective action could be taken and the nation as a whole understand the origin and nature of the policy and the ethics of the war party.Am I to understand you find the demand for serious congreesional hearings on the cause and lies of Bush-Cheney off the political spectrum because the Democratic leadership has decided to continue the Bush-Cheney-Roberts cover-up?

Note to BushLiedPeopleDied:

Not that I favor jokes about any type of violent behavior, but Larry and Josh are just gonna have to live with whatever Karma comes their way ...

Now is there any other substantive remarks you'd care to present about the topic of Johnson's article?

There's seems to be a notable absence of any further comments you've made in this entire thread. You know, besides the "Bush Lied People Died" mantra. Like ... what's you feelings about the administration's actions of disassembling the Constitution and the people's Bill of Rights right before you very own eyes.

~OGD~

I know I am preaching to the choir here, but there does not need to be any underlying crime. You do not lie to law enforcement when you are interviewed. Otherwise, all crooks would just lie to police/prosecutors in hopes that their obstruction of justice would prevent the underlying crime from being prosecuted.

RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW! WHAT WILL WE TELL THE CHILDREN?

I got the impression they don't give a damn about monetary damages, they are just using the civil suit system as a tool to get more stuff to come out.

LIGHT BULB!

... it sounded inaccurate to me to predict that they are going to win a lot of damages and so far, it still sounds pretty inaccurate.

I won't disagree with ya'... But there's some nits on my Labrador that seriously needs picking ...

~OGD~

~OGD~

Pot, kettle, black. Haven't seen you contribute any noticeable amount of content lately except berating other posters. You will find others on this thread who also found the joke offensive enough to comment about it. You going to go through the thread them and troll them too?

BTW, you can find the past contributions of that member by clicking on his name or here. Seems to me he's in the habit of commenting when he feels he has something important to say, rather than just baiting others into participating in a barroom brawl.

I'm not sure which post you are responding to here, but I'm game.

After 10 years you'd think this phoney claim that Conservatives believe he was impeached because he used the oval office as his personal blowjob bungalow. Do you have any links to any Legislators that believe that sex alone is a grounds for impeachment? One might exist,.. and if it does I'd love to see it, but in 10 years I've never heard of it. Please
share.

We just got done listening to Fitz explain how even the slightest fib to a single faux government investigation is worthy of 25 years in a cage. The left cheered and Larry here jumped in with his prayers for Libby to be forcibly raped. Mr. Johnson seems to think about Sodomy alot. He posted here a couple of weeks ago about his imagining being Sodomized by animals. But, thats Larry.

The four articles of Impeachment against Clinton did not include his sexual acts, his sexual assaults or his forcible rape.

He was charged with "Perjury in Grand Jury testimony"

He was charged with "Perjury in Paula Jones case."

He was charged with "Obstruction of Justice in Jones case including witness intimidation and subourning of perjury."

He was charged with "Perjury to Congress in response to 81 Questions from the Congressional commitee".

Clinton lied to and obstructed in all three of the branches of government. He lied under oath to the legislature, the Court, and the representative of DOJ, the Special Prosecutor.

That kind of trifecta is hard to pull off. Libby gets 25 years for a "he said, he said" against the word of two individuals, Cooper and Russert who were both caught lying.

"...To use a figurative analogy so you can get this into your skull: there is no law against getting a blowjob, but there is a very serious law against lying about it to a grand jury...."

He also lied about other things other than the actual sex acts.

I'm not sure what post you are responding to here, but since you brought this up, I do believe Clinton lied before Judge Wright's court and he admitted his guilt, paid his fines, and had his license to practice law torn up and flushed down the toilet.

His choice of what he did with his limited time by using his position to blow his load in some girls face is not a crime, it is irresponsible and negligent, so don't think I haven't got that "into my skull". How you let these confusing thoughts enter your skull, is your problem.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on what is nitpicking.

I don't consider it nitpicking to bring up the topic of the motives for & possible success of their civil suit on a thread labeled "Next Steps in Plamegate," especially one where the writer implies the suit is going to be a slam-dunk based on: nothing really.

I do consider it sort of nitpicky and an attempt to drag the thread off-topic of "Next Steps in Plamegate" by mentioning Victoria Toensing. Unless you're going to predict what she will say in her next appearance on TV regarding their civil suit because you have inside info. on the right wing noise machine's plans.

I saw on Nightline last night the leaker that exposed the ATT NSA terrorist surveilance story.

They could have told the story without sharing sources and methods or even going into detail about the switches and how detailed the engineering was. That was not necessary,

but there they were last night showing the actual blue prints and documents close up and photos of the Server room.

I am amazed how the left is not so interested in leaking classified information that can endanger tens of thousands of innocent American lives when it serves their purpose.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

So you still remain puzzled... And all the info in that comment hasn't clear it up.

Was the Office of Special Plans created under Section 3.4.16 authority? If not, but it inserted itself into the intelligence process, it may have been in violation of DoD directives, which does not make it illegal.

There is a question if the Office of Special Plans was considered an intelligence function, even though it appeared to present itself as such to the NSC, VP, and President. For many years, there has been an Office of Net Assessments in DoD. Net assessment, I believe, is better described by the fUSSR term of art, the "correlation of forces".

You may be puzzled. The Howard fella is not, as indicated, perhaps, by your wondering if I could come up with the relevant EOs, etc., which I did in a very few minutes. Is it that you want others to do your research, or that you don't care if you have facts before throwing out an opinion?

As your first quote shows, I see no indication there was illegality in having the Office, although there may have been a technical violation of DoD directives. Rumsfeld, subject to EOs and legislation, is not bound by directives issued by his predecessors or himself.

You did not raise the possibly more significant issue if Feith deliberately misled policymakers, although that's more likely to be something coming out in an impeachment hearing---or a Congressional hearing.

The Senate Intelligence Committee can throw light on the situation, but it certainly doesn't have the sole authority to decide. Venture more as you will.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

lying about a blow job? a greater threat to the Republic than Osama bin Laden!

lying about exposing the cover of a CIA spy working on preventing the spread of WMDs? not so much.

One place where I think you and I agree (I think), is that there should be an investigation to prove if she was covert or not.

What for? The CIA determined she was Non-Official Cover. Otherwise there would have been no investigation for Libby to LIE to.

The CIA determines who they designate as an undercover agent or not. What is so hard for you wingnuts to understand about this?

Howard, Let me clarify. When I used the term Blueprint, I was referring to papers that show schematics and diagrams, etc. I was not using the term in the literal sense, more the figurative. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

If I remember during the Clinton Administration the Carnivore program was described as having a cop stand on the side of the road and look for a specific license plate as he watches every license plate on every car that drives by. Is that a fair analogy?

Sorry Howard ...

I'm far from being puzzled, other that your initial statement as to you being puzzled.

It appears to me, now you're beginning to confuse by conflating, me wishing for others to do my research, or that I don't care if I have facts before throwing out an opinion. That's not the the nexus of this matter. It's not about you, and it's not about me. So try that word ploy somewhere else. Not with me.

The Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee have every right within the Constitution to oversee every last damn cent spent in every department in the US government. Now you or I may call that micro-managing. But the Senate Intelligence Committee is tasked with doing due diligence for we the people. No matter the DoD directives, EOs, memos, back door orders etc. etc., blah blah blah...

~OGD~

No, Carnivore would look for those plates, and then invisibly search the car's contents.

Yours is a closer analogy to the current Call Detail Record copying (I'm avoiding the word intercept). The law and decisions are really mixed about there being an expectation of privacy not on the public streets, but inside communications channels. I include postal mail as a communications channel.

There have been court rulings that "mail covers", writing down the return address on every piece of mail to an addressee, should have a warrant. What used to be called a "pen register", but now is the CDR technology, is more problematic. The Communications Act of 1934 said pen registers required a warrant, but later legislation and decisions indicated that the numbers called/calling are not under an expectation of privacy. The legal history here is somewhat murky.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

At 12:46 today, you posted:

But the puzzlement I have is that this Howard fella is puzzled.

The the DOD Office of Special Plans headed by Feith, certainly was not set up within the oversight of congessional review, such as the NSA and/or Defense Intelligence Agency.

Now, I wish Howard would hurry up and find us the EO and the specific citations and sections of that EO that allows such an Office of Special Plans to exist without congessional oversight ...

How does "I wish Howard would hurry up and find us the EO and the specific citations and sections of that EO" not equate to your wanting me to research just those matters of puzzlement? How is that "word ploy" when you suggest that information would be desirable, and then you suggest I go get it?

Yes, I agree that the Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee has the right to oversee "every last damn cent spent in every department in the US Government." The Congress also approved the DoD budget, and the laws allowing the Executive Branch to reallocate funds. There are other laws governing intelligence activities, especially concerning information on US citizens.

I disagree, however, that Congress must preauthorize any action taken by the Executive Branch, other than quite specific things such as declarations of war. When I was a contractor at the Department of Labor, the GS-17 in charge of automation (a deputy assistant secretary, IIRC) was demoted to GS-16 Director of Data Automation. Other than the internal consensus that his abilities were better suited to GS-1 assistant janitor trainee, I doubt this action even came up on Congressional radar.

Congress did note, mostly because it was the "Memo of the Month" in the Washington Monthly, when the Department of Justice announced that the Office of the General Counsel would, from then on, be called the Office of the Legal Counsel, while that which had been the Office of the Legal Counsel would be the Office of the General Counsel.

But the Senate Intelligence Committee is tasked with doing due diligence for we the people.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Whenever a President abuses something, it's worth thinking if the thing abused has been used well by other Presidents, or if it really should not be available to any. There is a difference in my mind between the general Presidential power of pardon, and lame-duck pardons just before leaving office.

Ford's pardon of Nixon probably cost him any chance of reelection, but Ford had the courage to do it two years before the next presidential term. It was hardly stealthy. While it can be argued if it was wise, I respect Ford's intention of moving on after a national tragedy.

Given that example, I would not be opposed, for example, to cutting off pardon authority after a new President was elected, unless the current President had been reelected.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Arta, I agree.

The Wilsons aren't naive nor did they just fall off the turnip truck, and the same goes for their circle of friends. I'm sure they researched among those legal beagles they know what a civil case would entail and their chances of receiving some monetary damages. Any money awards are incidental.......

I think they just want to get the Bush gang in discovery and under oath.

Another problem Libby is facing is legal fees. I know the right wing already chipped in a bundle and they may continue to carry him. Libby also has a family he has to help or fully support, and as far as I know he's out of work right now.

His situation reminds me of that old saying; "He's up Shit's Creek without a paddle."

J. McCutchen

Done Larry

Thank you! Please note that if you are not a constituent, this form will not process your entry. Non-constituents should visit http://democraticleader.house.gov to learn more about Congresswoman Pelosi's role as Democratic Leader.

Name: John Mccutchen

E-mail: jmac@sfsu.edu

Comments: Dear Madam Speaker: Yesterday on the District Courthouse steps, Libby juror told assembled reporters "It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's [Karl] Rove ... where are these other guys?' " It is now clear from the public trial record that the Vice-President was at the center of Libby's cover-up. Libby obstructed justice to cover up the White House continuing course of deceit pursued to lead this country to an illegal, unjustified war and thence to the greatest strategic disaster in US. That is more than enough to justify Chairman Conyers to open hearings in the House Judiciary Committee into articles of impeachment against Vice-President Richard Bruce Cheney. I ask you to support such hearings

And Armitage is a whistleblower why? In what universe? Oh, the one you like to make up!

Wilson didn't lie about the president. He told the truth. The president lied. Now, got it? Good. I thought you'd get it after a simple explanation! Now, go take your nappy.

Jan Knaus

What is so hard for you wingnuts to understand about this?

They don't want to understand it, one whole leg of their table is their contention that Plame was NOT covert.

(another leg of their table is; if Plame was covert it was Clinton that outed her)

Imagine if you will; all that the Forces of Wingnuttery would have to face, all they would lose, if they had to accept the FACT that Plame was covert.

Before you turn this into a rehash of the Clinton impeachment, allow me to deflate the whole issue. My point is that the grounds for an investigation and the naming of a special prosecutor does not have to be the one and only cause of an indictment and/or conviction.

The post I am taking you to task for is the one in which you try to derail discussion by calling into question whether Plame was ever "covert" to begin with and, thus, if a crime had even been committed to justify the whole trial.

My point, it doesn't matter. Libby lied. He lied to cover up a very good reason to question the integrity of this White House. And if Cheney is at all involved and is guilty himself of playing fast and loose with the truth and the law, he deserves impeachment.

In addition, I thought it would be educational if I attached the civil suit charges (from TPMMuckraker):

1) Violation of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech - because the First Amendment "prohibits government officials from subjecting any individual to retaliatory action in reprisal for the exercise of the right to speech."

2) Violation of Fifth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Laws - because the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment "prohibits government officials from intentionally subjecting any individual to treatment that is different from that accorded to others similarly situated and is without legitimate basis." In other words, they singled the Wilsons out for a smear job.

3) Violation of Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy - because the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment "prohibits government officials from violating any individual's right to privacy by publicly disclosing personal information."

4) Violation of Fifth Amendment Right to Property - because the Due Process Clause "prohibits government officials from depriving any individual of a property interest in employment without due process."

5) Conspiracy to Deprive Persons of Their Civil Rights - because Rove, Cheney and Libby conspired to deprive the Wilsons of their civil rights (as described in 1-4).

6) Action for Neglect to Prevent Civil Rights Violation - because Rove, Cheney, and Libby could have stopped the smearing of the Wilsons, but didn't, and then lied to investigators and the federal grand jury about their role in the leak.

7) Public Disclosure of Private Facts - because "The Defendants caused widespread publication of a private fact... in a manner that would be deemed outrageous and highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilites."

8) Civil Conspiracy.

From pages 22 and 23 of the suit (Muckraker PDF Documents):

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a judgment including, but not limited to:

A. Compensatory damages for violation of the United States Constitution and laws of the District of Columbia in an amount that is fair, just and reasonable.

B.Exemplary and punitive damages.

C. Attorney's fees and costs; and

D. And all other appropriate relief as may be just and proper.

Before you turn this into a rehash of the Clinton impeachment, allow me to deflate the whole issue.

"Diversion" is one of their tools when the facts are inconvenient.

He huffed and he puffed and he blew...

There's a character on CSI Miami that really sums up my reaction to this post of yours.

Sorry hombre ... Is that some kinda movie or TV drama? I personally don't live in the world of TV drama..

~OGD~

"If a President can be impeached for lying about a blow job then by God a Vice President should be impeached for setting in motion the forces that destroyed an intelligence network during a time of war."

And I thought sex was the enemy of America. What country do you think you live in, anyway?

Indeed. Then, perhaps, I shall turn to the Bard of Avon, and characterize your complaint as a tale of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

I might cite Churchill's characterization of Attlee as a "very modest man with much to be modest about" but, alas, you fail the first part of that characterization.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Still huffing an' puffing ... Eh?

~OGD~

Yeah, maybe someone should tell them to take it outside. ;-)

(Although I did get a laugh out of Howard's right hook in response to OGD's CSI jab.) 

Doesn't trouble me in the least...

But since you're into into such high-browed cliches...

As the old Sumerian proverb goes:

A boat bent on honest pursuits sailed downstream with the wind...

My boat sailed about five posts ago.. and I'm seeking out honest ports for it.

~OGD~

I have secret knowledge that Elvis killed JFK on behalf of the Palestinians. I know that for a fact,...but since my connections to the intelligence community are super double secret... "..The details of that story will never be told in order to minimize the harm already done...."

He has had 4 years to try this smoke screen, but he didn't, in the last 24 hours he has tried this new angle for the first time and I have heard several others on the left suddenly parroting this story.

It's a trial balloon, and it is being shot down as a farce. Elvis lives at Area 51 also....secret...Karl Rove....secret,...can't tell you.

Some folks just so happen to love standing outside the sand box egging others to wrestle?

Yawn...

~OGD~

THEY ARE NOT FATUOUS!