Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lawyers see charges this week in Plame/CIA leak case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lawyers see charges this week in Plame/CIA leak case

    FAR, I was betting on whether Plame was covert. I believe your wording was about whether they would get indicted for outing her. But she could still have been covert, regardless of whether the indictment comes down for that specfic offense. I think you have me on a technicality ... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] Regardless, I won't mind paying the 12-pack. I still think it's been made clear she was covert, so we have a spirit of the bet vs. letter of the bet issue. Heh.



    Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case

    By Adam Entous
    Reuters
    Sunday, October 23, 2005; 4:14 PM

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers and other sources involved in case said on Sunday.

    In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative -- as a "technicality."

    Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" she suggested Fitzgerald may merely be trying to show that "two years' of investigation was not a waste of time and dollars."
    [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif[/img]
    [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/roll2.gif[/img]

    Fitzgerald's investigation has focused largely on Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and their conversations about CIA operative Valerie Plame with reporters in June and July of 2003.

    Fitzgerald is expected to give final notice to officials facing charges as early as Monday and may convene the grand jury on Tuesday, a day earlier than usual, to deliver a summary of the case and ask for approval of the possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury is to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it.

    Fitzgerald could still determine that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges, but the lawyers said that appeared increasingly unlikely.

    The White House initially denied that Rove and Libby were involved in any way in the leak.

    Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia joined Democrats in saying that Rove and Libby should step down if indicted. "I think they will step down if they're indicted ... I do think that's appropriate," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify about her conversations with Libby, is also facing calls from colleagues to leave the newspaper because of her involvement in the case.

    Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, challenged the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

    Asked whether he was taking part in a final round of discussions with the prosecutor's office, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said: "I'm just not going to comment on any possible interactions with Fitzgerald."

    Lawyers involved in the case said Fitzgerald has been focusing on whether Rove, Libby and others may have tried to conceal their involvement from investigators.

    While Fitzgerald could still charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame's identity, the lawyers said he appeared more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information. Fitzgerald could also bring a broad conspiracy charge.

    INVESTIGATION EXPANDED


    Fitzgerald has sent several signals in recent days that he is likely to bring indictments in the case, lawyers say.

    One of the first postings on a new official Web site for the investigation was a February 6, 2004, letter giving Fitzgerald explicit authority to investigate and prosecute "federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses." The Web site was available at www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc.

    Indictments against top officials would be a severe blow to an administration already at a low point in public opinion, and would put a spotlight on aggressive tactics used by the White House to counter critics of its Iraq policy.

    Legal sources said Rove could be in legal jeopardy for initially not telling the grand jury he talked to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame.

    Libby could be open to false statement and obstruction charges because of contradictions between his testimony and that of Miller and other journalists.

    Miller has also come under increasingly sharp criticism by editors and reporters in the pages of her own newspaper over her conduct. Times Ombudsman Byron Calame wrote Sunday: "the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter."
    Dude. Can. Fly.

  • #2
    I guess good ole Kay Bailey thought it was "a technicality" when they went after Bill.
    Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

    Comment


    • #3
      QUOTE(dvyyyyyy @ Oct 23 2005, 05:01 PM) Quoted post

      FAR, I was betting on whether Plame was covert. I believe your wording was about whether they would get indicted for outing her. But she could still have been covert, regardless of whether the indictment comes down for that specfic offense. I think you have me on a technicality ... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] Regardless, I won't mind paying the 12-pack. I still think it's been made clear she was covert, so we have a spirit of the bet vs. letter of the bet issue. Heh.

      [/b][/quote]

      Dvy:

      The federal law that was being investigated (I forget the name of it now) contained at least two affirmative defenses. First, the definition of covert was limited to those who were operating in a foreign country -- or had done so within the the past 5 years (at least as I recall). The second related to intent -- namely, did the defendant know the person was covert when he/she revealed the operative's identity.

      When the Rove aspect of the investigation first came to light, I reached the conclusion that Plame had been back in the country in excess of 5 years and could not, therefore, be considered covert. For me, that was the end of the story as far as the violation of the statute was concerned. Others have defended Rove, Libby etc. based on the fact that they did not know Plame was covert. I've never reached that conclusion.

      I'm comfortable with my judgment that Plame was not covert as defined by the applicable statute. So, I don't mind revising the bet around this particular finding. So let's do this -- if there is a finding that Plame was in fact covert -- as defined by the statute -- then you win. If there is no such finding -- I win.

      Fair enough?
      "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

      Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

      "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

      Comment


      • #4
        Prosecution under the broader Espionage Act is a distinct possibility.
        The Dude abides.

        Comment


        • #5
          QUOTE(Moe_Szyslak @ Oct 24 2005, 10:22 AM) Quoted post

          Prosecution under the broader Espionage Act is a distinct possibility.
          [/b][/quote]

          Wanna bet?
          "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

          Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

          "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

          Comment


          • #6
            QUOTE(FAR52 @ Oct 24 2005, 11:34 AM) Quoted post

            QUOTE(Moe_Szyslak @ Oct 24 2005, 10:22 AM) Quoted post

            Prosecution under the broader Espionage Act is a distinct possibility.
            [/b][/quote]

            Wanna bet?
            [/b][/quote]

            I wouldn't take it. That shit is hard to prove. Easier to let the scoundrels hang themselves in their poor coverup job. Nailing them on a cover up doesn't at all imply that they didn't do anything wrong, it just means the original transgression is harder to prove.
            No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true
            President George W. Bush, March 21, 2006

            I'm a war president
            President George W. Bush, February 8, 2004

            Comment


            • #7
              QUOTE(FAR52 @ Oct 24 2005, 10:34 AM) Quoted post

              QUOTE(Moe_Szyslak @ Oct 24 2005, 10:22 AM) Quoted post

              Prosecution under the broader Espionage Act is a distinct possibility.
              [/b][/quote]

              Wanna bet?
              [/b][/quote]

              I'll bet you that it's a possibility. I have no inside knowledge.
              The Dude abides.

              Comment


              • #8
                QUOTE(Moe_Szyslak @ Oct 24 2005, 10:58 AM) Quoted post

                QUOTE(FAR52 @ Oct 24 2005, 10:34 AM) Quoted post

                QUOTE(Moe_Szyslak @ Oct 24 2005, 10:22 AM) Quoted post

                Prosecution under the broader Espionage Act is a distinct possibility.
                [/b][/quote]

                Wanna bet?
                [/b][/quote]

                I'll bet you that it's a possibility. I have no inside knowledge.
                [/b][/quote]

                Well if the law is not used -- how do we know for sure who would win the bet?
                "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

                Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

                "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

                Comment


                • #9
                  Far, it seems pretty clear (as long as you're not reading reprinted RNC talking points [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] ) that Fitzgerald is seeking to determine whether White House personnel intentionally outted Valerie Wilson.

                  I suppose he copuld be doing that even if the Espionage Act does not apply, but I'm not seeing why that would be.
                  Damn these electric sex pants!

                  26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                  Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    These guys have a website up now....you don't put up a website if something isn't coming down the pike...

                    "Can't buy what I want because it's free...
                    Can't buy what I want because it's free..."
                    -- Pearl Jam, from the single Corduroy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/24/cia...reut/index.html

                      QUOTE
                      After a Cabinet meeting, Bush was asked whether he agreed with Republican suggestions that Fitzgerald may be overzealous and that possible perjury charges would be little more than legal technicalities.

                      "This is a very serious investigation," Bush said. Rove sat behind the president in the Cabinet room; across the room sat Libby.

                      Lawyers involved in the case say Fitzgerald has laid the groundwork for indictments this week, and that he was focusing on whether Rove, Libby and others may have tried to conceal their involvement in the leak from investigators.

                      Indictments against any top officials would be a severe blow to an administration already at a low point in public opinion, and would put a spotlight on aggressive tactics used by the White House to counter critics of its Iraq policy.

                      Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, challenged the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

                      Lawyers said one possibility was a "split decision" in which Libby is indicted and Rove is spared.

                      But one lawyer involved in the case said that could be just as damaging to the White House because of the possibility that Cheney himself could be implicated in any resulting trial.

                      "It's improbable to think of Libby out there as a free agent," the lawyer said.

                      Bracing for bad news, White House officials are discussing how to cope without Rove and Libby if they are indicted and forced to step down.

                      Asked about the uncertainty, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "We've got to keep our energies focused on the things we can do something about."[/b][/quote]

                      [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img] @ McClellan

                      For Far, the attack-the-messenger message seems to have abandoned the she-wasn't-covert track.
                      Damn these electric sex pants!

                      26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                      Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        uh oh
                        Kids, just tell the truth, okay?

                        QUOTE

                        October 24, 2005
                        Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Notes Show

                        By DAVID JOHNSTON, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL
                        WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

                        Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

                        The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.

                        Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

                        Mr. Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.

                        It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

                        White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby’s legal status.

                        Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to decide whether to bring charges in the case by Friday when the term of the grand jury expires. Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment, lawyers involved in the case have said. It is not publicly known whether other officials may be charged.

                        The notes help explain the legal difficulties facing Mr. Libby. Lawyers in the case said Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that he had first heard from journalists that Ms. Wilson may have had a role in dispatching her husband on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission to Africa in 2002 in search of evidence that Iraq had acquired nuclear material there for its weapons program.

                        But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald’s possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson — who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame — from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said.

                        The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson’s wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the C.I.A. and that she may have helped arrange her husband’s trip.

                        Some lawyers in the case have said Mr. Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury. Lawyers involved in the case said they have no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.

                        But the evidence of Mr. Cheney’s direct involvement in the effort to learn more about Mr. Wilson is sure to intensify the political pressure on the White House in a week of high anxiety among Republicans about the potential for the case to deal a sharp blow to Mr. Bush’s presidency.

                        Mr. Tenet was not available for comment on Monday night. But another former senior intelligence official said that Mr. Tenet had been interviewed by the special prosecutor and his staff in early 2004, and never appeared before the grand jury. Mr. Tenet has not talked since then to the prosecutors, the former official said.

                        The former official said he strongly doubted that the White House learned about Ms. Plame from Mr. Tenet.

                        On Monday, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby both attended a cabinet meeting with Mr. Bush as the White House continued trying to portray business as usual. But the assumption among White House officials is that anyone who is indicted will step aside.

                        On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, the Washington Post published a front page story reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to the Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The story did not name the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.

                        An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White House had "twisted" the intelligence about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times. The note written by Mr. Libby will be a key piece of evidence in a false statement case against Mr. Libby if Mr. Fitzgerald decides to pursue it, according to lawyers in the case. It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr. Libby.

                        The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife. Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine, in his account of a deposition on the subject, wrote that he asked Mr. Libby whether he had even heard that Ms. Wilson had a role in sending her husband to Africa. According to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Libby did not use Ms. Wilson’s name but replied, "Yeah, I’ve heard that too."

                        In her testimony to the grand jury, Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times said that Mr. Libby sought from the start of her three conversations with him to "insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson’s charges."

                        Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions about Mr. Cheney, Ms. Miller said. "He asked for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interview with me or was aware of them. The answer was no."

                        In addition to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, Mr. Fitzgerald is known to have interviewed three other journalists who spoke with Mr. Libby during June and July 2003. They were Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, and Tim Russert of NBC News. Mr. Pincus and Mr. Kessler have said that Mr. Libby did not Mr. Wilson’s wife with them in their conversations during the period. Mr. Russert, in a statement, has declined to say exactly what he discussed with Mr. Libby, but said he first learned the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife in the column by Mr. Novak, which appeared on July 14, 2003.[/b][/quote]
                        http://nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24c...agewanted=print
                        No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true
                        President George W. Bush, March 21, 2006

                        I'm a war president
                        President George W. Bush, February 8, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          QUOTE
                          Published on Monday, October 24, 2005 by United Press International
                          Bush at Bay
                          by Martin Walker

                          WASHINGTON - The CIA leak inquiry that threatens senior White House aides has now widened to include the forgery of documents on African uranium that started the investigation, according to NAT0 intelligence sources.
                          This suggests the inquiry by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into the leaking of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame has now widened to embrace part of the broader question about the way the Iraq war was justified by the Bush administration.

                          Fitzgerald's inquiry is expected to conclude this week and despite feverish speculation in Washington, there have been no leaks about his decision whether to issue indictments and against whom and on what charges.

                          Two facts are, however, now known and between them they do not bode well for the deputy chief of staff at the White House, Karl Rove, President George W Bush's senior political aide, not for Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

                          The first is that Fitzgerald last year sought and obtained from the Justice Department permission to widen his investigation from the leak itself to the possibility of cover-ups, perjury and obstruction of justice by witnesses. This has renewed the old saying from the days of the Watergate scandal, that the cover-up can be more legally and politically dangerous than the crime.

                          The second is that NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.


                          Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium. This claim, which made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified documents from Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House.

                          This opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of the CIA leak case, that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or artificially exaggerated. This was the same charge that imperiled the government of Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after a BBC Radio program claimed Blair's aides has "sexed up" the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

                          There can be few more serious charges against a government than going to war on false pretences, or having deliberately inflated or suppressed the evidence that justified the war.

                          And since no WMD were found in Iraq after the 2003 war, despite the evidence from the U.N. inspections of the 1990s that demonstrated that Saddam Hussein had initiated both a nuclear and a biological weapons program, the strongest plank in the Bush administration's case for war has crumbled beneath its feet.

                          The reply of both the Bush and Blair administrations was that they made their assertions about Iraq's WMD in good faith, and that other intelligence agencies like the French and German were equally mistaken in their belief that Iraq retained chemical weapons, along with the ambition and some of technological basis to restart the nuclear and biological programs.

                          It is this central issue of good faith that the CIA leak affair brings into question. The initial claims Iraq was seeking raw uranium in the west African state of Niger aroused the interest of vice-president Cheney, who asked for more investigation. At a meeting of CIA and other officials, a CIA officer working under cover in the office that dealt with nuclear proliferation, Valerie Plame, suggested her husband, James Wilson, a former ambassador to several African states, enjoyed good contacts in Niger and could make a preliminary inquiry. He did so, and returned concluding that the claims were untrue. In July 2003, he wrote an article for The New York Times making his mission -- and his disbelief -- public.

                          But by then Elisabetta Burba, a journalist for the Italian magazine Panorama (owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi) had been contacted by a "security consultant" named Rocco Martoni, offering to sell documents that "proved" Iraq was obtaining uranium in Niger for $10,000. Rather than pay the money, Burba's editor passed photocopies of the documents to the U.S. Embassy, which forwarded them to Washington, where the forgery was later detected. Signatures were false, and the government ministers and officials who had signed them were no longer in office on the dates on which the documents were supposedly written.

                          Nonetheless, the forged documents appeared, on the face of it, to shore up the case for war, and to discredit Wilson. The origin of the forgeries is therefore of real importance, and any link between the forgeries and Bush administration aides would be highly damaging and almost certainly criminal.

                          The letterheads and official seals that appeared to authenticate the documents apparently came from a burglary at the Niger Embassy in Rome in 2001. At this point, the facts start dribbling away into conspiracy theories that involve membership of shadowy Masonic lodges, Iranian go-betweens, right-wing cabals inside Italian Intelligence and so on. It is not yet known how far Fitzgerald, in his two years of inquiries, has fished in these murky waters.

                          There is one line of inquiry with an American connection that Fitzgerald would have found it difficult to ignore. This is the claim that a mid-ranking Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, held talks with some Italian intelligence and defense officials in Rome in late 2001. Franklin has since been arrested on charges of passing classified information to staff of the pro-Israel lobby group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin has reportedly reached a plea bargain with his prosecutor, Paul McNulty, and it would be odd if McNulty and Fitzgerald had not conferred to see if their inquiries connected.

                          Where all this leads will not be clear until Fitzgerald breaks his silence, widely expected to occur this week when the term of his grand jury expires.

                          If Fitzgerald issues indictments, then the hounds that are currently baying across the blogosphere will leap into the mainstream media and whole affair, Iranian go-betweens and Rome burglaries included, will come into the mainstream of the mass media and network news where Mr. and Mrs. America can see it.

                          If Fitzgerald issues no indictments, the matter will not simply die away, in part because the press is now hotly engaged, after the new embarrassment of the Times over the imprisonment of the paper's Judith Miller. There is also an uncomfortable sense that the press had given the Bush administration too easy a ride after 9/11. And the Bush team is now on the ropes and its internal discipline breaking down, making it an easier target.

                          Then there is a separate Senate Select Intelligence Committee inquiry under way, and while the Republican chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas seems to be dragging his feet, the ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, is now under growing Democratic Party pressure to pursue this question of falsifying the case for war.

                          And last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced a resolution to require the president and secretary of state to furnish to Congress documents relating to the so-called White House Iraq Group. Chief of staff Andrew Card formed the WHIG task force in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion of Iraq, and Kucinich claims they were charged "with the mission of marketing a war in Iraq."

                          The group included: Rove, Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and Stephen Hadley (now Bush's national security adviser) and produced white papers that put into dramatic form the intelligence on Iraq's supposed nuclear threat. WHIG launched its media blitz in September 2002, six months before the war. Rice memorably spoke of the prospect of "a mushroom cloud," and Card revealingly explained why he chose September, saying "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

                          The marketing is over but the war goes on. The press is baying and the law closes in. The team of Bush loyalists in the White House is demoralized and braced for disaster.


                          © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc.

                          ###[/b][/quote]
                          Damn these electric sex pants!

                          26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                          Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            QUOTE(FAR52 @ Oct 24 2005, 10:01 AM) Quoted post

                            QUOTE(dvyyyyyy @ Oct 23 2005, 05:01 PM) Quoted post

                            FAR, I was betting on whether Plame was covert. I believe your wording was about whether they would get indicted for outing her. But she could still have been covert, regardless of whether the indictment comes down for that specfic offense. I think you have me on a technicality ... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] Regardless, I won't mind paying the 12-pack. I still think it's been made clear she was covert, so we have a spirit of the bet vs. letter of the bet issue. Heh.

                            [/b][/quote]

                            Dvy:

                            The federal law that was being investigated (I forget the name of it now) contained at least two affirmative defenses. First, the definition of covert was limited to those who were operating in a foreign country -- or had done so within the the past 5 years (at least as I recall). The second related to intent -- namely, did the defendant know the person was covert when he/she revealed the operative's identity.

                            When the Rove aspect of the investigation first came to light, I reached the conclusion that Plame had been back in the country in excess of 5 years and could not, therefore, be considered covert. For me, that was the end of the story as far as the violation of the statute was concerned. Others have defended Rove, Libby etc. based on the fact that they did not know Plame was covert. I've never reached that conclusion.

                            I'm comfortable with my judgment that Plame was not covert as defined by the applicable statute. So, I don't mind revising the bet around this particular finding. So let's do this -- if there is a finding that Plame was in fact covert -- as defined by the statute -- then you win. If there is no such finding -- I win.

                            Fair enough?
                            [/b][/quote]


                            I guess I never got back to this thread.

                            Like I said, just be nice to Cardinal Girl. Glad we didn't bet a Rolen jersey.
                            Dude. Can. Fly.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I guess I don't understand the reference to CG. What's up with that?
                              "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

                              Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

                              "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X