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!

Well, I guess uncovering the referral would clear some thing up then wouldn't it.

I may be wrong, but after reading your item in context it is referring to the first two categories of GJ items and personal items, it then throws in the grab bag at the end that does not imply that Libby's defense had autonomy in declassifying. It said basically ask the court for help and we will see what we can do.

Fitz didn't want it brought out and the left assumes it is because it is in the national interest because of its secrecy instead of assuming he is protecting his case.

It appears Libby wanted it to be made public and Fitz won the day with his buddy Judge Walton.

Walton has seen the referral and so has Fitz. Both of them have said that they have no reason to believe she was covert, and unlike Larry we can say with some certainty that they have actually seen the referral.

If you also assume that Judge Walton is being honest, he said that "I to this day don't know what her actual status was" under the relevant statute.

I'm sure the the CIA attorneys making the referral recited the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, noted a few reasons that maybe she did qualify as covert, noted some reasons that maybe she did not, noted that the issue has never been litigated, and then dropped it.

Judge Walton did not request briefs from the prosecution or defense on the question of her covert status, has not researched the law, and has no basis for a ruling.

So he does not know.

If Walton has several times told the Jury that her covert status is not to be addressed or considered (which we know now they did bring it up), doesn't that pretty much explain that Libby had no hope of getting it out?

Let it be known now if she was covert so we can prove that Wilson is the lying blowhard we have always known him to be, so we can expose this for what it always has been, a political hit job by a Kerry campaign staffer and a trumped up witch hunt and a fishing expedition. Why is Larry suddenly so against the truth coming out. The people deserve the truth.

No, he didn't have a coherent policy on how to deal with Al Qaeda. He was a big talker when it comes to challenging Bush though. I'm glad we didn't get a chance to see him fail as miserably against our enemies as he did against the President.

Seashell, I think I just explained that. If I am wrong, please help me out. Isn't it true that the Judge prohibited discussion of the covert/overt status?

Does that explain it? I might be mistaken on this, but help me out.

OK, I will have to look into Carnivore some more, but I thought I remembered the pre 911 description saying that it examines data but does not "analyze" the data or "categorize" it, unless it meets search criteria based on legal searches,..and then if it flags a "license plate" match, NSA must ask for a warrant to analyze, categorize, and make it actionable information.

I do remember at the time the discussion of the name carnivore meaning that it gobbled up literally everything in a giant net.

I appreciate the tip, I will look into this some more.

There is no possibility of failure against our enemies as long as Bush continues to confound the left's attempts to cripple our military's mission.

SFC Wallace - gone but not missed.

Tom

I'm having a small problem seeing this as an "element of our society" unless you mean rape in general.  In prison it looks like part of a system of non-judicial punishment more or less supported by the prison officials. 

Besides, we all know that elites like Libby get sent to special prisons for the rich and famous.   THAT does strike me as one of the brutal elements of our society.

Neoboho

TJK, on Feb 16, 2006 Fitz filed Government's Consolidated Response to Defense Motions to Compel Discovery, which included among other items, the defense's request for

(b) materials unrelated to Ms. Wilson’s employment status, including defendant’s notes and Presidential Daily Briefs, prepared during the period May 6, 2003 through March 24, 2004; and (c) documents referencing Ms. Wilson’s classified employment status and the actual damage caused by the disclosure of such status. As demonstrated below, the government has produced all documents and information to which defendant is entitled, and requiring the production of the additional materials sought by defendant would unreasonably encroach on legitimate interests of national security, grand jury secrecy, and executive privilege, and would cause unnecessary delay in the litigation of this case, with little or no benefit to the defendant. (p.2)

The defendant asks this Court to compel the government to produce materials relating to extraneous matters and crimes of which he is not charged: violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (50 U.S.C. § 421) and the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793). While the documents the defendant demands are not relevant, much less “helpful to the defense,” the documents sought are some of the most sensitive classified documents in government. (pp.17-18)

And finally, on pages 27-28 of the Motion to Compel:

Moreover, the publication of any informal assessment of actual damage caused by the leak could compound the damage by disclosing intelligence sources and methods. Given that the defendant has not established that such an assessment would be material, much less “helpful” to the defense, there is no basis even to consider providing him with access to such sensitive classified information....In any event, the defendant’s entitlement to documents related to the assessment of actual damage is appropriately addressed in an ex parte filing pursuant to Section 4 of CIPA, and the government will follow this course.

(Here is a link to CIPA, if you're interested.)

The defense also seeks all documents “relating to whether Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.” Mr. Libby predicates his request on a single reference in the indictment to the fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified during the relevant time.(11) (Paragraph 1(f) of the Indictment). The defendant overlooks the simple fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was either classified or it was not. If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time – and we do not – we would produce them though not strictly required to under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland. (p.28)

All emphases are mine.

With all of the above information, can you honestly believe that Plame was just a typist in the CIA? The facts are not your friends in that belief.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

TJ, the only thing you've "explained" is your penchant for weaving strawmen.  Here's Walton's instructions to the jury in full context:

“No evidence will be presented to you with regard to Valerie Plame Wilson’s status. That is because what her actual status was, or whether any damage would result from disclosure of her status, are totally irrelevant to your decision of guilt or innocence. You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them.” [link]

Had you been on that panel, you would have had to recuse yourself on the grounds that you couldn't follow the Judge's instruction in good faith. 

I wouldn't even go as far as Seashell and argue that the court was evading the issue in the interests of national security.  The simple fact is that it was not relevant, and seperating the wheat from the chaff is a typical pre-trial process.  Both parties agreed to this instruction before the trial began. 

Neoboho

TJK, the only protected unclassified documents were those that included the grand jury proceedings of persons who may have been investigated, but not charged with a crime and documents that contained personal mentions of phone numbers, doctors appointments or family contacts.

Therefore, if Plame's status was not classified, the defense would have been very free to reveal that.

See below for answers to the rest of your post.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Neoboho- those were the arguments Fitz used when arguing before the court on why Plame's status should or should not be made part of the trial.

The other thing he mentioned and which I think Libby's lawyers finally grasped, is that if her status was part of the trial, it would only hurt Libby and not help him, as the outrage would be centered on her outing. Fitz was looking forward towards the appeal on that one.

I can't remember which site had those pre-trial arguments posted, but I'll see if I can find them.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

What word would you use?

You're a good fly, neoboho:-) But the apples are usually so much more informative than the oranges, I think.

By demanding the classified info, Libby's lawyers were going for the greymail routine. By keeping it strictly focused on the grand jury proceedings, Fitz avoided the entire classified problem.

My guess is that none of the leakers, including Libby, knew Plame's full NOC status or her involvement with Brewster-Jennings. They were only concerned with making a case for despotism, since they couldn't knock Wilson down on his credentials. That's why there have been no charges on the leak itself. The leakers did not knowingly and with intent leak her name to screw up national security, just to screw up Wilson's story.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Well, they weren't allowed to use information about Libby's forgetfulness unless he was going to testify. They did it anyway.

Can you give a reference for this:

They weren't allowed to.

Jan Knaus

You may be right, and I certainly hope so, but I am concerned. I do not see why there are NO hearings on the Bush Iranian policy, which seems reckless and seem designed to lead to war. It would seem that getting in front of some of these issues with public hearings is very important. You say the intelligence committee is continuing their investigation (I think it has been doing so for the last four years...supposedly). When Pat Roberts was the chair it was certainly a whitewash, but you seem privy to more information than I can get. In particular, what subpoenas have been issued? Why is Cheney's pressure effective when the committee is controlled by the Democrats? I just do not get it. I am going to search the NYTimes and Washington Post sites to see what entries are there relating to Senate Intelligence Committee...I just don't think there are many.

Impeaching Cheney would be more productive than trying to impeach Bush on almost every front.

Our troops would benefit from Bush getting better advice from a different VP (look at the benefit of replacing Rumsfeld). And politically, going after Cheney is okay with swing voters but will still satisfy the far left (and the rest of us).

TJ, are you saying Bush won by a landslide against Kerry? Are aware that voter suppression and manipulation of voting machines in FLA and Ohio are the only reason he squeaked by? Yeah, I thought you were. So how do you mean he failed "miserably?" Usually that means a rout. Bush has taken office twice with extremely low popular votes, and of course the first time he actually lost, but let's not go there now.

Jan Knaus

Regarding Clinton, some of the crimes had already occured and any process crimes after that were incidental to earlier crimes.

Now let's talk about "overlap" as it might pertain to Libby, Cheney, and possibly even the President himself.

You are right about Libby; he IS smallfry. That's why this thread is about the NEXT step in Plamegate. Investigating Libby has produced one conviction and has convinced a number of jurors that there is more to be uncovered higher up the foodchain. Now whether there is enough specifically within the purview of the Plame leak to impeach Cheney or prosecute someone like Armitage remains to be seen, but there might just be enough to warrant a continuation of the special prosecutor and possibly to expand the scope of his/her investigations.

Given the success of Fisherman Ken to bring impeachment on the scantiest of pretenses, I think Cheney's office should be very worried that investigation might start poking in some very sensitive areas. Considering that Ken Starr was granted an expansion in his role by late January 1998 and had managed impeachment by December of the same year, I suppose we should be looking for something similar...let's say by the end of this year to avoid spilling into the presidential campaign year.

OK. Neoboho i have gone over all the entries in the Washington Post going back to January 1 2007 which mention Senate Intelligence Committee. There are very few of them leaving aside the interviewing of the new intelligenc honcho McConnell. On Feb 28, Rockefeller indicates he might look into the American prisoners who have apparently "disappeared" (as in Argentina during the "dirty" war) and January 27 indicating he might issue subpoenas concerning domestic spying. Now the Senate Committee has subpoena power. Why can't they subpoena Cheney and his Pentagon group and get some answers under oath? Is this farfetched? Why? We are talking about a major American catastophe. Aren't they (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) supposed to get answers? i do not buy your argument that it is premature; it really seems to me NOTHING is happening in the investigation of the manipulation of prewar intelligence. I'd like to know why.

Get rid of them both!!

Tom

'He was a big talker'

'he didn't have a coherent policy'

'to see him fail as miserably against our enemies'

Describes George Dubya on the mark TJ, very good !

Yes, the working definition I use is "smug in their ignorance."

I thought that was an apt description.

"...Neither of the two articles of impeachment that were passed involved matters related to the original scope of the White Water investigations. They were wholly irrelevant to the investigation and it was only once Starr had gained the right to expand his own fishing expedition that anything stuck. To this day no charges have been filed against either Clinton in the White Water investigation...."

I wasn't arguing that the Clinton's impeachment counts mentioned Whitewater. Starr initially recomended 11 counts of impeachment against Clinton.

Your remark about neither Clinton indicted for Whitewater, you may not remember, Clinton was stonewalling and obstructing right up until the day Gore conceded. Prosecutor Ray was still threatening indictments on election day. Ray only agreed to a package deal with Clinton to decline the criminal indictments of perjury and obstruction of justice if Clinton agreed to an admission of guilt to the Judge Wright charges, pay the fines, hand over his law license. This automatically disbarred him from the SCOTUS as well.

For someone who doesn't want to talk about Clinton you got alot of interest in the 42nd President. As I was reading this, I was thinking Hillary has been waiting for the old stuff to bubble up and I suppose with pardon talks and other stuff this week, its better for her now than later.

OK, here we go. This WSJ article is a pretty good summary of the shifty bunch of criminals Clinton hung out with his whole career. I have read alot over the years by Clinton friends and his closest aides and you can't find many people that won't tell you that he was a liar and had a propensity for "getting away with it". I almost felt sympathy for Hillary the other day when benefactor Geffen broke radio slience and called them what we all know they are. That was what made it such huge news. That rare occurence of a Clinton insider not intimidated enough by the Clinton Machine to break ranks and tell it like it is. Thats what blew people away, the thought that it might signal more defections. Like an old prize fighter coming out in the first round and getting knocked down only to get back up and regain composure for the fight. It was very dramatic for the MSM. George Stephanopolous in his book closes the last chapter in disgust over a man that he respected who blew his potential for the stupidest of blunders.

What you are calling a fishing expedition was an independent counselship that netted more than 15 high level convictions of Clinton's closest business partners. There are very few things Clinton touched in his carer that didn't leave in its wake prison and corruption. I am very familiar with Arkansas and, well, Southern Arkansas and Louisiana spawned several generations of Huey Long type corrupt populists and Bill was one of many. Thats the way it was run. That style of corrupt politics would not fly under the radar like it does in Arkansas when it hit the national stage.

In the process of locking up an army of Clinton associates, Bill Clinton pushed Monica to pressure Linda Tripp to commit perjury in the Jones case. She threatened that her career could be ruined and worse. Where do you go with a threat like that which we learned later was legitimate? She went to the Special Prosecutor.

Do you call a cop, go to FBI, talk to your congressman? So she went to Starr with allegations of subourning perjury. Reno was the one that asked that it be expanded because the evidence of criminality was so compelling and later turned out to be true. What does Starr do, throw it in the garbage? He is acting as an arm of the DOJ, a crime was committed before his eyes by the target of his investigation, using the same tactics that Clinton used to obstruct the white water investigation. The next day Clinton was committing perjury before the Grand Jury.

Your hopes of future prosecutions of Cheney or Queen Elizabeth or Santa Claus or whoever are not going to happen. Fitz already said his deal is done. No more investigation, no nothing. He stated it yesterday. Its over.

If you are hoping for Impeachment, I would just be delighted to see congress attempt to take on a war time commander in chief based on one of his staffers contradicting proven liar Joe Wilson when he lied about a CIA operation he went on in order to benefit his boss, John Kerry.

I would love that. That would be the most suicidal piece of political theater in American history. The constitution anticipated lunacy like this and your party would never recover from such indulgent psychosis.

There's a side story to Bush's folly in Iraq, its the price paid by those who jumped on the Bush Iraq War Bandwagon; Politicians, journalists and the News Industry itself. Among other things, many in the news industry saw their reputations take a hit.

Look at Russert. I remember when the Bush gang first took office, Russert's only guest was Cheney and there was Russert wearing an ear to ear smile, gushing over Cheney's "gravitas."
I don't know of any other show that became such a forum for the war drums like Meet the Press, Russert was Cheney's go to guy when Cheney wanted to get more go to war "news" out. In the end they used Russert, and old Tim had to lawyer up.

Three others that quickly come to mind are Tom Friedman, Bob Woodward, and Judy Miller.

The news industry itself suffered with an new assault, hauling reporters into court.

Any number of politicians are paying the price, those who lost elections and those who voted for the war and are now trying to distance themselves from that vote.

And last but not least; the wingnuts who make themselves look like complete asses by twisting themselves into pretzels trying to spin the reasons for, and the consequences of, the war in Iraq.

Larry's "secret" knowledge is this: he knows Valerie Plame. He went to spy school with her. He was CIA. Now that his own CIA career is over, and her cover is blown, he is simply stating what he knows. Who would know better what a CIA agent's covert status is/was than another CIA agent? Why would an "investigation" uncover more authoritative proof of her status than that? I mean, you can choose to disbelieve Larry, but on what basis will you then believe the results of an "investigation" into Plame's covert status, where much of the information would inevitably be heavily redacted?

It seems to me you are trying to set up a situation whereby you can say: "Look, her status was not covert, because no matter how many times we ask, we run into secret information; therefore, since the gummint refuses to reveal all to me, they are lying when they say she was covert."

I can certainly understand this position -- I think the government does sometimes lie to us and cover up its lies under the guise of national security, prime examples being its refusal to let us know who it is wiretapping and why, or its refusal to allow human rights monitors in to Gitmo -- but in this case, as others have pointed out, it would make more sense for the government to maintain that Plame was *not* covert. But that's not what they have done here.

What you are calling a fishing expedition was an independent counselship that netted more than 15 high level convictions of Clinton's closest business partners.

What is a "high level conviction"?

Clinton's "closest business partners"?

"Partners"?

15? Are you counting the homeless guy that Clinton saw on the street in Arkansas that he gave $5.00 to?

Why are you ignoring the list of those "connected to Clinton" who died mysteriously?

And what about the Clinton drug operation being run out of Mena airport in Ark?

After 6 years of constant hearings into Clinton by both Republican controlled Houses, 3 Independent Counsels, Subpoena power, up to $100 million spent. Richard Mellon Scaife spending millions privately, the "Arkansas Project" to name one instance, and NO indictments of Clinton?

WAIT!, This can't be right, can it? NO INDICTMENTS OF CLINTON? HOW CAN THIS BE???? 6 Years of Republican House and Senate hearings and no indictments???
After all of this, NO INDICTMENTS OF CLINTON??? OR HILLARY??

NO murder indictments??? NO Rape indictments????

NO Treason indictments??? How can this be????

NO drug running indictments?

Oh, wait a minute, you did have impeachment, but you failed, you and the 33% of the public who favored it.

TJ and people like him are the gift that keeps giving. The more they try to spin Bush's antics the farther Bush and the Republicans drop in the polls.

TJ, did I ever thank you for helping us take Congress back? Keep up the good work.

TJ, it amazes me that when the witch hunt or fishing expedition involves Clinton, everything that hints of the worst must be true in your opinion--the stonewalling, the "mysterious deaths," the double speak. But when it concerns the Bush administration the worst is simply hate mongering.

It might surprise you to realize that I agree that the Clintons were engaged in all kinds of stonewalling and double-speak. I reserve judgement on "mysterious deaths" however. That kind of tabloid speculation is unproductive.
It might also surprise you to know I have never voted for Clinton.

That said, you seem to be far too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an administration every bit the equal of its predecessor in stonewalling and double-talk. When you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, that tends to happen. This president has invoked executive privilege time and again, except that Bush's use of it has meant a headlong march into a war in which thousands have not-so-mysteriously died.

You can spin the actions of the Bush administration any way you want, but until you learn to engage in some disengaged, objective criticism of the current administration, your words will always ring of delusional polemic.

On March 7, 2007 - 7:10pm TJKING said: There is no possibility of failure against our enemies as long as Bush continues to confound the left's attempts to cripple our military's mission.

I find it amazing that those on the right find a sense of satisfaction, of accomplishment, and also a sense of positive reinforcement when they post mindless tripe like the above.

Its like a man chopping one of his hands off then claiming how much more convenient it is to not have TWO sets of fingernails to clean, cut, and polish.

Everyone probalby knows this, but....

There are a number of hearings that are going on that don't get much, if any coverage. With the Congress in session, the best source of hearings is C-SPAN, but their first responsibliity
is to airing the Senate and House regular sessions. C-SPAN 3, PERHAPS should be exclusively for hearings but it isn't.
C-SPAN will air taped hearings after the House and Senate close for the day.

I think CNN now has a "paid service" that streams programs as I encountered this the other day when it was showing one of the hearings.

When asked what he would investigate, Henry Waxman said something like: "I don't know where to begin."

Give them some time, its still early, lets see what's happening by early Summer. Hearings will go on, my question is; As the Democrats start peeling the onion on any particular Bush controversy (take your pick) what will they do if they see it heading toward impeachable offenses?

Agreed, put it on the list. By the way, I think there is an investigation on these documents going on in Italy.
Bush lost his a**hole buddy Berlisconi and this new government isn't exactly Bush friendly.

What was that, TJ? I'm sorry, I was distracted by the first inklings of expansion: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/070307/lawmakers_inter.htm?s_cid=rss:site1

On March 7, 2007 - 12:31pm TJKING said: 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?

Only in a wingnut's mind would the leaker of a covert CIA agent's identity be called a "whistleblower."

Besides, we all know that elites like Libby get sent to special prisons for the rich and famous.

Exactly Refer to my previous post on the two tiered prison system.

Who will resign first; Cheney or Gonzales?

1- Cheney won't last 6 months.

2- Gonzales right after.

I THOUGHT you were being funny! And I agree with the way you said it. It probably would not have gone over all our heads if the list had been longer --> about 10 horrible adjectives and you had objected to fatuous. Anyway, I still think you were funny!

Jan Knaus

I'm not sure if this is a response to your topic of comparing the ethics of Clinton and Bush or an attempt to let me know that you are choosing not to address the point.

If you are trying to imply that George Bush personally asked Domenici to call Iglesias, you are not speaking clearly. If you are trying to imply that at the end of a long investigation we will know the truth about Bush's threats against Iglesias, then how is it we are conversing in a thread about a 5 year old illegitimate scheme to discredit Bush and now that it has been proven that Bush was telling the truth and Wilson is a liar, Dems want to sweep it under the rug. The original question in the beginning could have been decided by answering if she was covert. Now the left is running like hell from the question.

Implying that Bush is guilty until proven innocent with your link assumes that when he is proven innocent, there will be a statement saying so.

He was innocent and Bush deserves an apology from the left.

Now it appears you are trying to imply he is guilty until proven innocent of something new. I don't think so.

If you read any of the links I provided you might have some background into the following.

After flailing around trying to confirm Lani Guanier and then Kimba Woods, as a female frontman for Web Hubbel the heir apparent to the Department of Justice, and Asst. Attorney General, they settled on Janet Reno. They knew with an already active investigation into Whitewater, that Hubbel as #1 would raise eyebrows. So they rifled through a stack of what they thought were maleable women that they could use as a spokes person while Hillary's Law Partner would run the Justice Department.

When the Religious extremists in Waco died during the attack on their compound, Clinton pushed Reno forward to take the heat. To their surprise, Clinton did avoid responsibility, but Reno developed a persona of a take charge leader in an administration where taking responsibility was rare.

Later in her career, this independent streak would, as you noted, lead her to secretly ask for Ken Starr's expanded authority to investigate Bill Clinton's Criminal abuse of power in his many legal problems.

One of the differences of your look at Bush and our look at Clinton is, yours is yet to be resolved and in fact is a pretty weak allegation anyway.

Clinton's order of business as soon as he took office was get Hubbell and his gang in charge and start chopping off heads. Fire as many Republican appointee's as possible, as fast as possible, and use the mechanism of the state to spy on previous appointee's private files.

Hubbell and Clinton got Reno on board and immediately wiped out, not 7 or 8, but all 93 US attorneys and made it effective "immediately". Embattled house Ways and Means chairman, Dan Rostenkowski, at the time about the most powerful man in Washington, won a reprieve from his impending indictment. He would owe Bill and Hillary. He did serve them well for a while. Eventually Hillary threatened Rosti over her doomed socialized Healthcare debacle and the Congressman openly bad mouthed her in public asserting his independence.

In 1994, the charges were filed and Dan Rostenkowski was found guilt and served 15 months in Prison.

Here is how it looked back in their corrupt days in the early 90s:

"...Indeed, when confronted with what seems to have been White House pressure to buy time for Rostenkowski, Miss Reno didn't head for home, she fired every U.S. attorney, including the one investigating the powerful House Ways and Means chairman.

Normally, when control of the Administration changes from one party to the other, the old U.S. attorneys are replaced gradually. Thus, when Tom Corbett, chairman of the U.S.-attorney advisory committee, asked Miss Reno about the transition timetable on Thursday, March 18, and got no answers, he assumed there would be the traditional, slow handover. He reeled when, on Monday morning,Associate Attorney General Hubbell told him the attorneys would have to resign immediately. Literally. "[They] should be able to clear out of their offices over the weekend," one White House politico told Corbett. (Miss Reno was nowhere in sight.) Corbett had to fight just to get the attorneys an extra week to clear out.

The next day Miss Reno called for resignations. Jay Stephens, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., resigned that afternoon, commenting that he had been within thirty days of a "critical decision" about Rostenkowski. (Once Stephens left, the transition lost its urgency; some Republican U.S. attorneys are still on board.) The Illinois congressman may yet be indicted for his alleged abuse of the House Bank, but Stephens's hasty dismissal surely slowed the investigation, leaving Rosty, who loses his chairmanship if indicted, in place to steer Clinton bills through the House...."

And for what its worth, Hillary's law partner at the Rose Law Firm, Mr. Hubbell, was tried numerous times in several different venues including the supreme court and imprisoned for felonies ranging from Fraud, Tax evasion, conspiracy and more.

That's who they picked to be their go to guy at the Department of Justice of the United States.

Bush is a better than Clinton all the way around.

Man you read a lot into a very brief post. What part of the word "expansion" failed to connect. I make no claims about the guilt or innocence of anybody, only that there are emerging grounds for an expanded investigation. If the trail for these very mysterious firings (whose rationalizations you have clearly bought into) lead all the way back to the White House, the buzz about impeachment could turn into a roar.

As I said, I never voted for Clinton. I never voted for him because I didn't trust him.

I REALLY don't trust Bush, either.

deleting double post. Damn, that's the second time today!

"There are a number of hearings that are going on that don't get much, if any coverage."

I hope you are right. I understand some of these things take time; but with the Republican control over most of the media, sometimes all we hear are Republican talking points and it does drive me up the wall, and I want to use some of these hearings for oversight of course but also as a way to manage the message.

TJ, after reading that post of yours, all I have to say is; Mental health hospitals are doing wonders these days. Take thee to a physician.

I think I must have understood it quite clearly after all. You are now implying that a disgruntled US attorney who is claiming that Domenici said one thing in a phone conversation while Domenici claims the conversation was about something else (Domenici apparently has witnesses to the conversation) may create an "expansion" into a removal from office for Bush.

We are 10 months from the first caucuses and even sooner than that are the candidates debates and as the clock ticks down you are imagining that every time a former government employee writes an OP-ED or something about Bush that it will lead to his impeachment.

I am not saying you are supporting Clinton. And if you don't trust Bush thats fine too. But I think for anybody (not you necessarily), in the 90s, if the bar for impeachment was so high that committing perjury and obstruction of Justice deserves censure and then back to work the next day, but today it is so unbelievably low that for almost nothing each week there is a new scheme to rally the impeachment crowd.

Its as if people are saying We need to impeach him, but first we have to find a reason. I think someone that thinks like that (again, not necessarily you) should search their souls where that urge comes from.

I appreciate your posts and responses. Some good links and informative ideas. Lets hope that 2008 is more of a competition of ideas and vision.

On March 8, 2007 - 6:10pm BBochove said: "There are a number of hearings that are going on that don't get much, if any coverage."

I hope you are right.

Waxman will hold a hearing next Friday, the 16th, on the Plame leak. One of the witnesses will be........Valerie Plame.

The Real Story is that Bill Clinton was preparing for a face-to-face summit with Fidel Castro, and needed to practice talking to a cigar in the middle of a beard.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Ouch.

I am accusing you of plagiarizing the Miller's tale from Chaucer, but with out the remark about the smell of Fidel's breath. [good one]

Unrelated matter: Here is current news story link regarding our discussion about Carnivore type systems.

C'ville Dem, thank you and BRAVO to all of us! As I have gone out of business, temporarily at least, in the facts vs. children's fiction department, I now offer the wise words of Molly Ivins for all of us who fight good fights:

1. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous.

2. The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values. We do not need to dominate the world. We want and need to work with other nations. We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood.

and Winston Churchill:

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Here is a link to what I posted earlier that proved to be my slam dunk. You may have missed it.

The page numbers refer to Judge Tatel's opinion. (They start over with each opinion). The other 2 judges didn't seem as chatty, but I only skimmed. It's 83 pages total.

I referred to IIPA and covert (NOC), because that's how Judge Tatel refers to the underlying charges, and perhaps even holds hope that the charge could find it's way back to the table. And these judges refer to perjury, also, but whatever...they are only judges.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Isn't this your 5th farewell tour.

Are you too dense to realize I put you on ignore for only that other thread and not for eternity? You're too entertaining and too easy a target to ignore forever.

Great. But do you hear ANYTHING from senate select on intelligence?

This is the Committee Pat 'Cover Up' Roberts used to Chair and is now Chaired by Rockefeller. As Chairman, Roberts
promised 4 years ago to look into a second part of the Intel concerning Iraq, the second part, Phase ll, if and how the Bush gang manipulated the evidence for the war. The first report by this committee is usually quoted by the right wing as a "win" for Bush because it focused on Intelligence failures by the CIA. Republicans Roberts, Orrin Hatch and Saxby Chambliss were allowed to add an addendum to the report which was simply a whitewash of the whole WMD argument.

As the Ranking Member on the Committee I always saw Rockefeller as way too shy or weak to attack the Republicans, I'm not fully confident in him and what he'll do with the Chairmanship.

Sara, excellent information and analysis

Can't say I disagree, but just think...what if some of the leakers, or leak instigators, DID know Plame's status?  Let's say they considered it, and decided that upholding Bush's lies was of a higher order of national securiosity than Plame's secrecy?  

Oh, I wrote here quite a while ago about reading that one of Brewster-Jennings missions was keeping tabs on Saudi Oil reserves (what are the real figures?)  So why not get Joe and cripple B&J in one move.  A lot of Dubya's friends have big bucks riding on the King's official figures.  (James Baker comes to mind.)

I'll tip my tinfoil hat to that theory! 

Neoboho

I think it is fair to say if a crime is being alleged, we should assume someone is not a covert Agent pending a full investigation. At the end of that investigation should be a conclusion that definitively decides whether that was a fact or not.

Since the fact is knowable and there are those in the government that are in possesion of this classified information, I am not in possession of that classified material. Neither are you.

What you refer to as my "claim" is an educated assesment based on existing information. Neither I nor you know for a fact since it is classified. Even Judge Walton, said he didn't know.

If 10,000 angels said so, I would ask if they had access to the classified materials that can decide the matter. As you mention, Tenet might say it too, but as you predict, I would doubt that too, because since he is no longer legally authorized to divulge such classified material, I would doubt he would risk imprisonment.

As I said, a full investigation followed by a definitive disclosure would be in the best interest of this nation. Fitz was supposed to conduct a thorough investigation and since congress has changed the Special prosecutor law, he is not required to file a report with them. They were maintaining their own responsibility to report if need be.

Since Fitz has not definitively stated the result of the investigation, it in essence is not a thorough investigation if there are still people that believe the IIPA was breeched.

If congress asked for the answer and the director of the CIA formally announced the declassification of her previous "covert" status including declassification of her modified pay grade that reflects "covert" status and that they would share any sensitive documents with the Senate Intelligence commitee. That would clear it up to the satisfaction of all reasonable people.

It would not satisfy Joe Wilson and his supporters, but hey,... "Truth to Power" hurts sometimes, Joe.

As long as OSP was a DoD organization, it would always have been subject to Congressional review by the Armed Services Committees, since they have authority to order in the Secretary of Defense for testimony. This has nothing to do with it being intelligence or not. Now, if Rumsfeld never told Congress about it (i.e., it never appeared in a budget), that's more difficult, but I don't see any clear-cut violation of the National Security Act if these were DoD funds.

There is also the question whether the OSP was ever formally considered an intelligence agency, or a policy/net assessment shop that is a user rather than a producer of intelligence. The Bill Casey things involved funds being moved around between DoD and CIA, which clearly did involve intelligence agencies.

OSP appears to have been a very bad thing for the US, but I'm still not sure where Rockefeller comes up with illegality. Part of the problem here is that we don't know if the "Big 8" were briefed about OSP, assuming it was covered by a Special Access Program (SAP). There has been a running argument, for a number of years, if compartmented NSA programs are SAPs under Defense Department regulations, or Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) under the final authority of the Director of Central [National] Intelligence. The rules leaked on SAPs a couple of years ago, and oversight falls into three categories:

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"...On March 9, 2007 - 3:56am seashell said:

Here is a link to what I posted earlier that proved to be my slam dunk. You may have missed it..."

You are referring to a response to Fitz that he submitted as a sealed affidavit (still secret), in which the Judge is stating that he does not know, but wonders aloud, ...why would Fitz lie?. So, it is based solely on what Fitz knows. Why doesn't Fitz divulge the contents of the sealed affidavit that put Miller in Jail. It is obvious from the Judges document, that some of his assumptions have now been proven wrong. Even now Fitz still has not stated she was covert.

Even yesterday the Washington post refers to Fitz this week describing her status as classified, not covert.

Here is Dan Froomkin, also apparently a big fan of the anti-libby FDL, at the Washington Post:

"...Ann Arbor, Mich.: Dan, you are the best thing about The Washington Post in my opinion. Can you comment on the role of bloggers in this trial? Were you very impressed with firedoglake and their coverage? (Yes, shameless plug.)

Dan Froomkin: Thanks. I think what firedoglake.com did with this trial was not just impressive, it was transformative. By offering the public live-blogging of this very important trial, you not only put the MSM to shame, but actually became a must-read for journalists who couldn't attend the trial, but wanted to get a better and faster sense of what was going on than they could from their own colleagues.

I'm not saying that the MSM should emulate everything bloggers do -- far from it -- but the blogosphere's enthusiasm for this story was something to behold, and admire.

Blacksburg, Va.: How can the question of Valerie Plame Wilson's status at the CIA (covert or not) finally be cleared up?

Dan Froomkin: Wouldn't that be nice? Fitzgerald tried to clear it up yesterday, stating quite definitively that her status was classified. Which means that while she technically may not have been covert by the standards of the IIPA, her identity as an operative was secret, and should not have been disclosed.
Given the continued debate over what is a fact, it would be nice if it were revisited journalistically and definitively. ...."

If the judge was assuming from the sealed affidavit that Fitz was claiming she was covered by the IIPA, according to his remarks yesterday, your reference to the Judge's conviction was a leap of faith by the judge not a statement of fact.

The second part that you put in bold, again, "...a statement that strongly implies Plame was covert at least at some point....", expresses that he thinks Fitz "implies", based on his sealed affidavit, but does not state definitively, nor does it refer to where Fitz might have derived this information from.

The Judge in his background in your document states that Wilson had conveyed in his statements that Saddam has not sought Yellowcake and the Judge presents this undisputed which leaves the impression that he believes that any news value for Miller or the others is minimal because the Judge believes it to be true. After 3 years, we know from Senate investigations and from Wilson himself that Iraq had sought Yellowcake. This would have made Wilson's false attack on the president substantially newsworthy although maybe not to the level of keeping her out of court. If the Judge is weighing news value versus potential harm, he is wrong on the news value and his potential for "harm" is based on Fitz's character.

"...Thus, given the compelling showing of need and exhaustion, plus the sharply tilted balance between harm and news value, the special counsel may overcome the reporters’ qualified privilege, even if his only purpose—at least at this stage of his investigation—is to shore up perjury charges against leading suspects such as Libby..."

He is saying covert or not, perjury (by Libby or whoever she is protecting) is a crime, so Miller goes to Jail.

The next part you highlight again, says "might". Again based on the sealed affidavit and Fitz's trustworthiness.

"...What’s more, if Libby mentioned Plame’s covert status in either conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable..."

Hoping and wishing and praying and waiting,..da, da, da!

Sorry no luck, Judge.

All of this from the Judge is saying Fitz wouldn't be saying this if he didn't intend to prove it: to prove the disclosure was unauthorized and illegal, and in this case a "what if" about Miller showing that Libby was the person that told her (on July 8) for the first time about Plame. We know now from the trial, Miller bombed out for Fitz and after bringing the trial to a halt for a day and a half, finally admitted that she would not testify that Libby was the one that first told her about Plame. So the above quote about "might" (based on a promise to deliver Miller by Fitz) turned out to be a "might not". Actually, with regard to viability of IIPA, a "definite not".

Some exculpatory assumptions could easily be made here as well. The Judge says:

"...If Libby mentioned Plame during the July 8 meeting—and Miller’s responses to the documentary subpoena suggest she has notes from that conversation (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 19-20)—then Libby’s version of events would be demonstrably false, since the conversation occurred before he spoke to Russert...."

Furthermore, Plames identity had already hit the wires before he talked to Russert.

Shouldn't it be assumed by this statement that without Miller we revert back to Russert, and the perjury charge is weakened and furthermore the credibility of Russert then is weighed against Libby. As I noted before. If Fitz had used the statute for "perjury, instead of "false statements" he would have needed a corroborating piece of evidence to convict. In this case it was one mans word against another on 3 of the counts with no corroborating evidence. The Jury led by Russert's neighbor and acquaintance, Dennis Collins, formerly of the Washington Post and a Spy author, did not believe Libby and chose to side with Russert ( a spy book about an acquittal is pretty boring, I think we all agree, and worth very little money). It should be noted that midway through the trial Judge Walton changed the rules and refused to allow some evidence he had previously agreed to allow. If he would have allowed evidence that demonstrated how Russert had gamed the system and lied to the court, there is no doubt it would have been more difficult to convince the Jurors of the trustworthiness of Russert or even Fitz himself.

Regardless, what you have modestly referred to above as your "slam dunk" (apparently a term that should be avoided in intelligence matters), is judges giving leeway to a prosecutor based on his trustworthiness and the assumptions that he will "logically" follow through with a vigorous pursuit of the question of whether there was a violation of law regarding the disclosure.

Everyone expected that. It was a logical assumption. Illogically, Fitz did not. He did not pursue it vigorously because he already knew the answer. Armitage was the source. The Judges could not have imagined that Fitz would not at least make an effort, and if he did make an effort, at least that he would resolve the matter and definitively settle the matter publicly. He did not.

That leaves us with the very simple solution. Why can't they clear this up once and for all.

Apparently, Henry Waxman has announced a show trial in congress next week and apparently Plame has agreed to appear. I don't think anyone here believes she will enlighten us on whether she was covered by IIPA. Fitz was invited also. I don't think anyone here believes Fitz will either and in fact Fitz probably wants to hide from this type of so called fact finding committee. Lets see if it is the democrats or if it is the Republicans that ask if she was covert.

The solution to this issue is have congress request that the Director of the CIA come out and declassify the information on whether she was covert or not. If someone wants to hide behind the idea that some of it can't be declassified, share those parts with the Senate Intelligence committee. But if she was covert, the record will reflect that as well as well as her past modifications in pay grade that record that she is "covert".

Don't we want the issue of whether the IIPA was broken settled. Don't we want to know the truth.

If Fitz yesterday said she was classified. That is not covert. I mentioned up in the thread, that you had mentioned NOC and covert as the same thing and I said it was not. You explained that the judge referred to it that way but I did not see that. If he did, then he is unaware of the law on this matter. In the above parent post you again equate NOC to covert which it is not. If you don't think so, then lets agree to disagree, but I continue to assert the terms classified, covert and NOC are each different.

I have said this is a fishing expedition and I will be interested to hear Waxman explain why he is holding hearings. It is obvious, Fitzmas came and went and he doesn't like the gifts he received. I also said that a guilty verdict would undoubtedly be more entertaining and so it goes, the charade continues.

In your post where you refer to your job of "Facts versus Children's fantasy", I don't think your "slam dunk" is facts proving her covert status and if you believe it is a children's fantasy for me to want to have a witch hunt prove what it was authorized to prove, like a breech of law referred to in the CIA referral, then I guess I set the bar a bit higher regarding the responsibility of the government to prove its case. I like your posts and the links are informative and interesting.

Facts are necessary here. These facts are knowable. The public has a right to know. The truth should come out now.

Is the cool aid tasty? Do you see pretty colors? Does it bring on a sense of euphoria?

How can you be so out of touch with reality?