Note to graphic artists: Big Dick, Last Throes.
poputonian |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:06 pm | #
Oh, that would be a good one, poputonian. Just no images that are *too* literal, please.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:08 pm | #
Jane, it may just be me, but I thought I had read that neither Cheney nor Bush was interviewed under oath. This story is the first time I've read to the contrary. Does anyone remember differently?
Matt Davis |
10.24.05 - 9:09 pm | #
Still, I'd like to see confirmation of his testifying under oath. Some details, pehaps? Dates? Circumstances? What brought about the under oath scenario?
I'm dubious of the NYT. Trying not to get to far ahead without confirmation.
Pachacutec |
10.24.05 - 9:10 pm | #
I hear that. AG's porn squad is on the loose.
poputonian |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:10 pm | #
And wouldn't every public incident of Total Dick (and other admin lying sacks) claiming a 911/Saddam connection &/or WMD nonsense also strengthen a conspiracy case?
(Whether as a motive to thug the Wilsons, as a cover-up of the phony case to invade Iraq, or as proof of a system in place to dupe the public and congress about Iraq?)
Also: happy happy happy JOY JOY JOY
they're goin' down
they're goin down
and not the way that Monica did
but a million zillion times worse
happy joy
happy joy
happy joy joy joy
happy joyyyyyy!
.
Peanut |
10.24.05 - 9:13 pm | #
does it really matter whether it was under oath or not? Most Americans would not think it is kosher for the VicePresident to prevaricate (lie) to an investigating attorney or FBI agent. What can Cheney say: aha, gotcha, I was just answering questions posed by a US Attorney tasked by the President to find the truth BUT since I wasnt under oath, I get to lie like a motherfucker?
Don't think so !
Wilson46201 |
10.24.05 - 9:14 pm | #
Oh man !!!
I`m gonna buy stock in all those popcorn suppliers & get rich, rich, rich !
It just keeps getting better & better...
"Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall." - Robert C. Byrd
daCascadian |
10.24.05 - 9:15 pm | #
but I believe the Times may be wrong about the "under oath" part in the story today. Every previous story I can find about Cheney's June 2004 interview with Fitzgerald states that it was not under oath.
including this one from the time of the interview by David Johnston, one of the authors of today's story:
Was cheney interviewed a second time under oath?
andrew |
10.24.05 - 9:15 pm | #
Tonight's NY Times articles clearly says Cheney talked "under oath". Does any other reporting of Cheney's chat at the time contradict this?
Mary |
10.24.05 - 9:15 pm | #
MAYBE poppy o will scapegoat snarlin sauron cheny to save jr
jr in big mess dis time .
TREASON is reaching for too many stars and poppy may have outplayed his hand...
One Mr. Fitzgerald who won't take the dirty money..
Scorpio is in Jupiter meaning Light will shine into the dakness
dbeach |
10.24.05 - 9:16 pm | #
RE: under oath: at this point in the conversation, I cannot imagine that these reporters and all the teams of lawyers this stuff has to go through (and I mean the NYT vetting lawyers -- not the leaking lawyers) were not VERY CAREFUL in checking that particular bit of information.
It's still a crime to lie whether he was under oath or not, but it is my inclination to believe that he was.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:17 pm | #
Isn't the oath issue moot - if Fitz has been working this for 2 years and has questioned Cheney and Cheney lied, even if not perjurious, it's obstruction and conspiracy ... or am I missing something?
siun |
10.24.05 - 9:19 pm | #
what is the likelihood that, if cheney is now on the hook, he will flip and give up dubya?
is it possible that this cheney stuff was leaked by fitz and co. just for that purpose?
..
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 9:19 pm | #
Under oath is a "technicality" here... Almost irrelevant. It's a crime to lie to Fitz during an investigative deposition. Cheney did lie. Not only to Fitz, he lied to the press, he lied to the American people.
People at Hardball for instance will take offense if it can be proven he lied, and it clearly can be proven he lied... Oath... He's a liar, thru and thru...
The press will skewer his ass, he has no political capitol in the bag that can save him from this. He is pathological.
Me |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:21 pm | #
me... your getting hung up on technicalities and prosecutorial gotchas.
..
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 9:22 pm | #
TalkLeft has good stuff on the under oath versus not under oath question, re: legal implications.
I hear you re: NYT vetting the information. . . I just can't get myself to feel confident about it just yet.
Pachacutec |
10.24.05 - 9:22 pm | #
It's also an impeachable offense, if he doesn't resign. don't we finally have enough on GWB to impeach? He knew, he had to know, I'll never believe he didn't and I can only imagine after what else comes out with the indictments that many wishy-washy wingnuts will see some kind of light.
Pretty please with sugar on top?
'
zennurse |
10.24.05 - 9:23 pm | #
matt, as reddhedd pointed out in another post it doesn't matter if you are under oath or not, you are busted if and when you lie to a prosecutor, especially one like Fitz who appears to be following all roads, which we now know for an absolute fact, lead to Big Dick cheney. it wouldn't be perjury if you aren't under oath, but it would be illegal to lie to the Man from chicago. he'd get ya for something else. It seems that there is some disagreement as to whether cheney was under oath.
I think that at the least cheney will be charged with obstruction of justice, and probably conspiracy. and hopefully a lot more!!
I do believe in multiple indictments I do I do.....
michael72 |
10.24.05 - 9:23 pm | #
Rove is still not in the picture... He would be the person to give up little georgie boy. What with his temper tantrums and the like...
Me |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:23 pm | #
zennurse... nothing is impeachable without a congress that is willing to impeach.
..
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 9:24 pm | #
as a break from the oath issue, take a look at Billmon's page tonight - both a lovely tribute/photo of Rosa Parks and just below and wonderful Cheney pic... (www.billmon.org just in case)
siun |
10.24.05 - 9:24 pm | #
what is the likelihood that, if cheney is now on the hook, he will flip and give up dubya?
is it possible that this cheney stuff was leaked by fitz and co. just for that purpose?
Nah. Fitz can't indict Bush regardless of where the facts lead. And I doubt he has any political interest in bringing down Bush.
Matt Davis |
10.24.05 - 9:25 pm | #
michael72: matt, as reddhedd pointed out in another post it doesn't matter if you are under oath or not, you are busted if...
Oh, I know. I was just wondering why this was the first story I could remember that said Cheney had been sworn in. (Technically, though, Jane's "Perjury, Bitches," headline would need to be "Obstruction, Bitches" in the event that the NYT got the sworn oath part wrong.)
Matt Davis |
10.24.05 - 9:28 pm | #
congress willing to impeach - I think we may be getting closer - polls super low, war dismal, lots of scandal which does not fly with the "we came to clean up washington" bit, rumors (with visual evidence) of temper tantrums and drinking (there is apparently film of W drinking too), the Meirs nomination flipping out the base ... W is starting not to look so good to congresscritters approaching 2006 ... maybe?
siun |
10.24.05 - 9:28 pm | #
siun, thanks for mentioning about rosa parks. I saw that just a while ago and wanted to mention her. a nice tribute by billmon. and truly a great woman.....how much difference can one person make? it's right there.
michael72 |
10.24.05 - 9:28 pm | #
Cheney testified in June of 2004, I believe?
I wonder how and when Fitz got the notes.
Was it before or after Cheney's testimony?
pontificator |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:29 pm | #
Novak is out of the country till Thursday. Want to guess when Fritzmas is?
tryggth |
10.24.05 - 9:30 pm | #
There's no way any congress will impeach a president of its own party. Well, maybe a Democratic congress . . . but not this congress. They'd just stonewall as long as it took. I can't imagine a situation where the fallout for not impeaching would be worse than the impeachment itself.
small fry |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:32 pm | #
Fitz leaks NOTHING!
It was widely reported that Bush & Cheney were interviewed not under oath, but that's just BushCo spin. Why wouldn't fitz depose them and then let them decieve the American public?
Franken's right about leaking the truth thru 'jokes'. Letterman's audience laughed at the word "executed". But it is now plausible.
John Forde |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:33 pm | #
It's front page Yahoo this evening.
Me |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:35 pm | #
Jane--it seems to be all coming together with this as the last piece. vp's office under the bus...the perjury "technicality" spin...Bush saying it's serious...scowcroft's article...
Bush knew long ago that Darth perjured himself and was toast.
Everything now is to protect Chimpy. Everything. Even if Rove goes down while takeing scooter and Big Time with him.
it all makes sense.
I now think that just about eveyone in vp's office including BT is going down...along with Rove (sacrafice) and a couple of others (Hughes, Card?, and Rice , please, oh, please)
I now think this is going to be huge. bigger than our wildest dreams...and Chimpy will be the only bloody one left standing so poppy and his men can save his ass yet again.
Shakespeare couldn't have done it better.
NYBri |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:35 pm | #
A little off topic. . . but I still can't get my head around the stories today linking the investigation to the Niger forgeries.
Could this be just the beginning? Could Fitzy have Cheney clearly involved in a conspiracy to disseminate phony intelligence, possibly commisioned by him to Ledeen and his crew (just for old times sake)?
How deep could this get? I keep thinking of those redacted pages from the judge.
Pachacutec |
10.24.05 - 9:36 pm | #
I would bet real money that Cheney was under oath when he testified. Why assume that the WH spin doctors told the whole truth about the circumstances of his testimony when it happened? Nothing they've done so far gives us any reason to believe they would give up a detail so crucial when in fact it was in their best interests to lie about it.
To me, this eleventh hour revelation was leaked by those ubiquitous and mysterious "lawyers close to the case" in order to soften the blow when the indictments come down. They want the press and public prepared for the worst, having calculated that this is better than letting Fitz hit them with a bombshell. Now, though they had to give the talking heads this huge, bleeding chunk of red meat, they know there is less than 48 hours for it to be digested before Fitz issues the indictments.
I found it really curious that so many (both reporters and those ever-ready "lawyers") have jumped in to attempt to minimize the speculation over the potential fallout from this. The sudden conviction that this means nothing and Cheney is off the hook just serve to deepen my conviction that Big Time is gonna bite the big one. As Jane said, that man did not go before the GJ and volunteer all of the details of his talk(s) with Libby. Darth Cheney doubtless lied his huge ass off, figuring that Fitz would never be able to divine his role in the mess. He probably worked out with Fibby the lie about getting the leak from reporters, and figured that would be the end of it. He may not have considered that his obsessive/compulsive sidekick would keep meticulous notes on their dark machinations.
Self-inflicted wounds are often the nastiest of all. When the bushies are thrown onto the ashheap of history, will it be thought of as a suicide?
Xeno |
10.24.05 - 9:36 pm | #
1) In the previous thread, Reddhedd confirms that Cheney didn't have to be under oath to have committed a crime by lying to Fitz.
2) The Times "vetting" is pretty suspect. The last paragraph has a sentence with no verb. I emailed their "corrections" dept. for clarification, but, well, they didn't read any of the 287 emails I sent them about their Miller stonewalling...
3) I still say that the mere fact that Cheney withheld this information from the PUBLIC demands that he resign tomorrow. How can it be any other way? How can even Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh defend him now? Or even Tom Maguire! jajajajajaja LMAO! It's a grotesque betrayal of the public trust.
One twist could be Cheney's health. It is apparently shocking the man is still alive, given his cardiovascular profile. If he was going to resign anyway, why not take the fall?
elizgold |
10.24.05 - 9:40 pm | #
Chimpy will be the only bloody one left standing so poppy and his men can save his ass yet again.
Looks like Chimpy's two options are to go down in history as the stupidest president ever or the most corrupt.
(I give him credit for both)
Peanut |
10.24.05 - 9:41 pm | #
If Cheney goes down with Scooter and Karl, I'm not sure how Dubya survives -- it would be tantamount to admitting he's just an empty suit they send out to read the teleprompter while other folks run the country. Granted, they'd need the jaws of life to pry him out of the Oval Office, but Republicans in Congress might realize that he's going to drag them down with him.
Regarding the "under oath" thing, I haven't looked up the earlier NYT stories, but my hunch is that they got that word from WH sources who have since backtracked.
About perjury, I'll repeat from my Needlenose post: How did we get this far with Libby spouting the "I heard it from journalists" alibi if Cheney testified more than a year ago that he'd told Libby?
For that matter, I can't see how that defense could have been floated if Fitzgerald had these notes before this week. (He may already have had testimony from Wurmser or Hannah that Cheney knew, but that's all.)
Which leads me to the guess that Libby handed over the notes in a plea deal.
Swopa |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:43 pm | #
Good and logical analysis. I think the spin here is in the Tenet bit. Maybe you could say that in a very broad (and probably deceptive) way that "it came fromTenet. But does that mean it came from the Airforce One document requested from Tenet. ( They don't want to admit the information to came from the "top secret" information circulated on Airforce One because of the legal implications. ) So leaking this information to the press both softens the public up for the inevitable disclosure of whatever is in Libby's notes and also begins the spin on the defense, ie. "but , we don't know she was covert." Tough luck. Perhaps you should have checked first idiots. These are supposed to be the people in charge of our national security. They shouldn't be held to the same standard as gossiping middle schoolers, (even if that's their mental level.) They were, at least, grossly negligent with classified information, defined as a crime under the plain words of the statute.
Anonymous |
10.24.05 - 9:44 pm | #
AND...WTF is he going to do about the war?!!! All the people who crated the damn thing will be gone, disgraced...and the entire thing was based on their trumped up lies.
He hung his presidency on the war, allowed the neocons to fabricate the reasons, his incompetency fucked it all up ...and now he's left alone with the mess.
If it's Shakespeare, the tragic flaw of hubris would inevitably be the undoing of King George II (unless you count Washington as I, in which case King George III).
matt, it's the first story where I can remember them saying that Darth cheney was sworn in too....I wonder what that means? maybe the NYT knows something the others don't, or else got it wrong.
michael72 |
10.24.05 - 9:47 pm | #
I am confused - I read the NYT articles previously and Cheney and Bush I thought were not under oath- although they both have /had hired criminal defense attorneys.
It doesn't matter it is I believe still considered a deposition and they still have to answer questions, or they can be viewed as obstructing an investigation.
I also wonder when did these new notes appear regarding the 6-12-05 conversation?
My real problem is that I don't trust NYT as source now...
enigma |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:49 pm | #
The article also says they have to know that she was covert for the leak to be a crime. Isn't that the old IIPA rearing tis head again? Haven't we beaten that line back many times by pointing out the 1917 Espionage Act?
That detail, if I have it right, is another reason I'm not completely cofident in the NYT reporting here.
Pachacutec |
10.24.05 - 9:49 pm | #
Xeno's comment about Cheney not planning on Scooter's obsessive notetaking makes me wonder - was the LA Times story about those notes a hint/nudge to someone to spring the notes story tonight? (you know, like those secret messages all those terrorists send if allowed to see ... gasp ... lawyers!)
while I haven't seen any talking heads saying Cheney will be indicted, they all looked a bit stunned by the story and prolly don't want to jump too fast on last minute news ... esp from the NYT - both CNN and MSNBC were doing their last live news of the night as the story was breaking and they are not real agile at live thought.
siun |
10.24.05 - 9:50 pm | #
As I said before, for most corrupt president, Bush beats out Nixon, but Harding would give him a run for his money.
For stupidest POTUS, I think our boy has Harding beat, but Ronald Reagan is untouchable in that category.
I don't think the oath matters. If he wasn't under oath, it's a false statement charge. If he was, it's a perjury charge. But both have the same penalty - 5 years.
Perjury in this kind of case, if it does not occur before the grand jury, requires two witnesses. Perjury before the grand jury, or a false statement charge, does not have that requirement.
Also, a putative defendant may be able to cure a perjurious statement before the grand jury by going back and 'fessing up, if it was not particularly material to the crime, as Rove may have done with his Matthew Cooper conversation, but that option does not appear in the false statement or general perjury statute.
TalkLeft |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 9:52 pm | #
jane thanks for the coming check on whether Darth Dick was under oath thing or not. I don't even know where to begin on that kind of background info or how to sort through all the news articles.
this is almost too good to be true.
I do believe in multiple indictments I do I do.....
michael72 |
10.24.05 - 9:56 pm | #
Although I would love to see it happen, I sincerely doubt that Cheney's going down for this, at least under the circumstyances presented here. Don't get me wrong, I fully belief at this point that Cheney is the man behind burning Valerie Plame and that he knew that she was working under NOC and proceeded to set in motions the events that would burn her big time, but, and it's a huge but legally speaking, I suspect he in typical mafioso fashin set up enough of a barrier between himself and anyone else to get away with doing so. As Wolcott said the other day Rove may be Bush's evil genius but Cheney is his own. In other words, Libby is just the tool. It's quite easy to believe that Cheney (again knowing exactly what Ms. Plame's status was and exactly what he was doing) set Libby up with just enough info to get her name out but withholding enough so that it couldn't come back to haunt him (Cheney). Can't say at this point whether "scooter" knew before hand he was blowing a covert operative (though at the very least he was deeply negligent in not knowing) and it seems almost certain he lied afterwards to cover it up, but I really can't see this going back to Cheney unless Libby is willing to say "Dick Cheney told me who she was and what her status was," which seems fairly unlikely.
In the end I think Cheney is probably the most guilty party here, but sadly unidictable, mainly cause I doubt he lied to Fitz. More likely it seems to me is that Cheney is the one who mentioned to the SP that he was in fact aware of Ms. Plame's employment by the CIA but not of her status and that he passed that info on to Scooter. That scenario just as easily explains Fitzgerald's interest in the Libby-Miller meetings. That is Fitzgerald knew through Cheney that the info was out there and that Libby had exchanged it with Miller and likely Rove as Rove was talking with reporters too. So yeah, in the end Cheney was the source but he didn't share it with any one unauthorized. That was left to the tools. Actually, if my conjecture is the case that could explain the alleged fallong out between the POTUS and Veep as well in that Cheney's cleverness with Libby ended up ensnaring Rove as well. If anything would piss off Dubya that would be it.
j fyrste |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:01 pm | #
I now think it may very well be a very merry Fitzmas.
NYBri |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:01 pm | #
What is the line of succession?
If Cheney is a liability and is gone, and nobody knows but if Bush is in jepordy that leaves SoS in line I believe. Rice. It could even be that she goes down at the same time as Dick and the other WHIG's.
I dont think this will happend since I hope our Prez would not lie to us about this, but it seems he may be a liar. With the gravity of the case that puts him in danger.
What I am saying is that the succession to POTUS is potentialy critical in this case (putting aside a senate and congress lead by criminal republicans - be it a puppet dictatorship like deLay or whatever), as would be the order of how things happen.
I wonder if a president could (constitutionaly, strict constructionist, right), resign/fire the VP, and then appoint a VP of their choice, and then resign or be impeached themselves.
If he had his dream recess appointment I wonder who it would be? Poppy 41? He might have to go with McCain.
Would an impeached, and disgraced President be allowed to appoint their own successor? Would the Senate have to approve a new VP? I am not a great history buff... has a VP ever died, been fired, or resigned?
Did Andrew Johnson, LBJ, Ford, appoint their own VP, or was it the SoS?
I dont mean to go loopy liberal nutty, only that these are interesting questions. And if speculation is the game we might as well learn a bit of constitutional law in the meantime.
gleex |
10.24.05 - 10:01 pm | #
TalkLeft -- I'd be interested in your thoughts on a conspiracy to obstruct. At this point, I think Fitz may be looking at that very seriously, if he just received the Libby notes after applying pressure for a deal or after perhaps learning of them from Miller (?). There is so much we obviously can't know from outside the investigation, but this is really starting to smell like a broad-based conspiracy to me from the outside and that cannot be a good sign for those under investigation. Are you reading the same tea leaves on this or am I just overly hopeful? (It's hard to tell this late.)
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:02 pm | #
Gleex -- next in line is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, which would be Denny Hastert.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:04 pm | #
Tenet has yet to start singing publicly or leaking privately; he was still adhering to his 'gentlemen's agreement' to keep his yap shut and they wouldn't try to pin all this crap on him.
When they tried, he pretty much announced he'd start singing like an Irish tenor. It'll fill in the holes and provide more nails for the coffins, plus a potential stake for Novakula.
Peanut |
10.24.05 - 10:05 pm | #
While we wait for Jeralyn's answer, let's talk spin. As bad at it as the democrats are, how could they possibly fail to force Cheney to resign for lying to the public about this? Won't there be widespread outrage tomorrow?
1. Vice President (Richard B. Cheney)
2. Speaker of the House of Representatives (J. Dennis Hastert)
3. President pro tempore of the Senate (Ted Stevens)
4. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice)
5. Secretary of the Treasury (John W. Snow)
6. Secretary of Defense (Donald H. Rumsfeld)
7. Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales)
8. Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton)
9. Secretary of Agriculture (Mike Johanns)
10. Secretary of Commerce (Carlos Gutierrez, ineligible)
11. Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao, ineligible)
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Michael Leavitt)
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Alphonso Jackson)
14. Secretary of Transportation (Norman Y. Mineta)
15. Secretary of Energy (Samuel W. Bodman)
16. Secretary of Education (Margaret Spellings)
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Jim Nicholson)
Once Fitz clears out the rat's nest of corrupt bushies, they'll be down to the White House Butler.
Xeno of Elia |
10.24.05 - 10:08 pm | #
Reddhead, you and Jane have been doing outstanding coverage of this case. My thoughts on obstruction vs. perjury vs. false statements and tonights New York Times article are here.
TalkLeft |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:12 pm | #
I agree with Swopa.
There is something seriously wrong with the timing. What is the first thing any lawyer does in any case? Collect the documents. Always first.
If Libby's notes had been collected early, then Libby and Cheney and EVERYONE would know (assuming even basic coordination of a cover story) that testimony needed to be tailored to those notes.
It would have been awkward given the public statements, but a limited hang-out would definitely have been required.
So I think Swopa is correct: those Libby notes did not surface until this last week. Probably in a plea deal.
So -- Libby leaked them, or the WH found out about the plea deal, and the WH leaked.
I think the WH leaked. They saw Cheney was toast, and decided to get ahead of the firestorm and start building space around gwb.
That's what Baker would do.
Indicted or not, Rove is gone. He has imperiled the power of the Big Money that put gwb where he is today. Kiddie shenanigans are ok if you keep winning, but will not be tolerated now.
jwp |
10.24.05 - 10:12 pm | #
Lookin pretty good for indictments isn't it. Wish Fitzy would go ahead and do it tomorrow- waitin's a bitch.
rwcole |
10.24.05 - 10:13 pm | #
And people say the Democrats have no leaders. That line of succession is pathetic.
gleex |
10.24.05 - 10:16 pm | #
j fyrste you have no faith.
Trust Fitz ;)
Cheney is bagged and tagged... Not just legally, but publically. He directly lied to the press, his political support is worth zip. He will be indicted, if he fights stepping down from office he will be fighting wolves, sharks, vipers, and poisonous spiders...
It's a mortal wound for a guy that likes to hide in secure undisclosed locations. Like the cockroach he is, he will scurry for cover now that the light of truth is shinning down on him.
May satan enjoy the fruits of his soul for all eternity.
Me |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:16 pm | #
jwp -- I think it had something to do with Miller's notes. That's why Fitz needed her testimony. That's what made Tatel's eyes bulge. No idea if Cheney can be pulled in for an indictment, but from this point forward he's politically radioactive for the White House because his name will be all over the indictments when and if they come down. Man, what I would not give for an hour or two with the summaries for the G/J in this case. Not knowing all the facts is killing me. ;-)
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:17 pm | #
IIRC teh preznit would nominate a replacement VP and the senate confirm which given shrub's tendenciy to pick well whoever he assigns to do the picking could be quite an interesting process. Though again I doubt Cheney has left himself too open to indictment. The man would hang his mother without thinking about it twice. His heart wouldn't skip a beat, which is saying something, over letting Libby hang.
j fyrste |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:17 pm | #
Wonder where they are going to go this weekend?
Oh, I think he is off to China, maybe he can check in on the person who now has my job.
gleex |
10.24.05 - 10:18 pm | #
that's the thing. in the political world, and the general citizenry, widespread outrage begins with a charge of perjury (or conspiracy) at the highest level of the Executive Branch. Not with a charge of Making False Statements. However equal they may be under the law, they are not in the court of public opinion. That's why the oath matters.
And it matters to me also as a point of reporting. Could the Times and dozens of other outlets have gotten it wrong since June 2004? Or WAS Cheney under oath, having been "sworn in" as was speculated above, but the TERM "under oath" was not used, due to some technicality?
If Cheney was fully under oath, why did Fitzgerald's office not correct the Paper of Record and everybody else?
andrew |
10.24.05 - 10:18 pm | #
I just read Nicholas Kristof's article, Hurricane Fitzgerald, and I can't believe what I just read.
Special prosecutors always seem to morph into Inspector Javert, the Victor Hugo character whose vision of justice is both mindless and merciless. We don't know what evidence has been uncovered by Patrick Fitzgerald, but we should be uneasy that he is said to be mulling indictments that aren't based on his prime mandate, investigation of possible breaches of the 1982 law prohibiting officials from revealing the names of spies.
Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald is rumored to be considering mushier kinds of indictments, for perjury, obstruction of justice or revealing classified information. Sure, flat-out perjury must be punished. But if the evidence is more equivocal, then indictments would mark just the kind of overzealous breach of prosecutorial discretion that was a disgrace when Democrats were targeted.
--snip--
So I find myself repulsed by the glee that some Democrats show at the possibility of Karl Rove and Mr. Libby being dragged off in handcuffs. It was wrong for prosecutors to cook up borderline and technical indictments during the Clinton administration, and it would be just as wrong today. Absent very clear evidence of law-breaking, the White House ideologues should be ousted by voters, not by prosecutors.
What planet is he on? How many fucking times do we have to show them that Fitz's mandate had nothing to do with the 1982 law? Fitz put his letter up on his web site. Good, fucking, God.
NYBri |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:19 pm | #
obsessed: how can there be wide spread outrage when nobody is covering the story?
i just got home from the office. i can't find a single thing on any of the cable news reruns (it's 1 am EST) about this. not a single fucking thing. just boring cat 2 hurrican footage, something about some lawyer's dead wife, and an interview with pamela anderson.
..
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 10:23 pm | #
Maybe I would be better for the VP slot. Will have to tell George....
Pointedhead - CNN ran with it late in the Newsnight slot and MSNBC had it as a lead on Joe Scaarborough - the release of the story at 10PM or so made timing of coverage tricky for tonight.
siun |
10.24.05 - 10:26 pm | #
Reddhedd, I am willing to entertain the idea that Miller's notes were important. That seems to fit with the chronology of events (something I always watch for clues), but don't you think that Libby's notes are late arrivals?
I cannot imagine Libby holding out hope these past desperate weeks if he knew that his notes were in Fitz's possession.
Also, interesting to consider what computer (if any) those notes were kept on. My guess: none. Otherwise, they would have been found. Maybe they could be hid in a codeword account, misfiled, or something, but big risk that a security officer might find them.
So paper. What was that like? Why would Libby keep them? Why not burn them?
That decision was made long ago. The implications startle me, and I am not that easily startled.
Libby kept them to have something to deal. He knew all along that he would turn Cheney in. Unbelievable.
jwp |
10.24.05 - 10:27 pm | #
Swopa & jwp are making sense to me about Libby's notes only recently coming to Fitzgerald's attention. Remember that González gave them advance warning so perhaps Libby scooted away with his precious notes, only to use these particular ones as leverage in his alleged plea bargain.
Now, if that's true, isn't the fact that he withheld the notes another crime, and doesn't this make González look pretty bad? And what other juicy notes might Libby and others have stolen away with during the window of opportunity González provided?
OK, somebody down the previous thread asked the same question I have:
What's up with Pincus, Milbank, and Kristof???
Do we have some reason to be worried?
If it were just one temporarily flaked out person, that's one thing. Three people acting so weird? Is this a trend?
What does it portend? Somebody please tell me not to be worried.
Mrs. K8 |
10.24.05 - 10:29 pm | #
Tenet must have been among the first to talk with Fitzy- it's likely that Fitzy knew all about Cheney being in position of this information from the beginning- or else Tenet's in trouble.
This would explain how Fitzy mapped his course through the investigation. He already knew the destination- it was just a matter of charting a course to get there. It was about Cheney all along- once Cheney agreed to talk and didn't mention the Tenet discussion
Fitzy was also able to waylay Scooter with the same baited trap.
We are starting to learn a little about how this thing worked
rwcole |
10.24.05 - 10:29 pm | #
Thanks, Jeralyn. Great read and spot on. One thing, though, I think the leak may have been an attempt by some of the political folks to get this out ahead of any indictments, to minimize the shock wave by leaking some of the more damaging bits in little dribs and drabs. Not for the legal representation end of things (wouldn't you want to throttle your client if you were asked to leak all this crap?), but for the political hardball consequences overall for the administration. If they control the leak, they can try and control the story.
But I completely agree with Swopa that this is a very dangerous move, if that is what we are seeing -- the empty suit question will start rearing its head over and over again if that's the tack they are going to take. Politically, the WH would have been better served to have gotten in front of all of this and fired anyone involved from the start. By trying to play it cute and "I know nothing," they are going to be tainted by complicity, whether or not they can be shown to be so legally. And perception in DC is reality in so many ways.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:29 pm | #
NYBr - Nicholas Kristoff should just go buy some more Cambondian teenagers and STFU.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:30 pm | #
obsessed: how can there be wide spread outrage when nobody is covering the story?
i just got home from the office. i can't find a single thing on any of the cable news reruns (it's 1 am EST) about this. not a single fucking thing. just boring cat 2 hurrican footage, something about some lawyer's dead wife, and an interview with pamela anderson.
oh yeah ... I keep forgetting that we're all on LSD and that the real world is more concerned with Natalee Holloway or whatever her name is.
Wake me if anything materializes under the tree (yes, I bought a Fitsmas tree - it's a little Venus Flytrap in a terrarium).
Pachacutec |
10.24.05 - 10:32 pm | #
NYBri: Someone at the Times obviously has pictures of Kristof getting his knob polished by one of those 12 year old Cambodian sex slaves he likes to write about.
What a nauseating disgrace. And at the 11th hour no less. And to compare Fitz to Javert? My God. The guy is a choir boy.
...
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 10:32 pm | #
andrew -- Fitz would not have corrected anything because the conduct of the investigation and any information gleaned for grand jury consideration is to be kept secret. Period. It can taint the investigation to go on the record about anything -- hence the constant "no comment" responses, outside of any legal briefs filed in the case. Every leak is coming from a defense attorney or from an interested political operative working on behalf of some putative defendant in this case. (With the exception of Waas' source, who I'm almost positive must be FBI because his info is just too damn good.) As a prosecutor, you don't talk about the grand jury, even to correct the public record, which is one big reason that Ken Starr's tenure was so shameful -- it leaked like a sieve.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:33 pm | #
OK, I must have missed the story about Kristof.
What's the Cambodian teenager story? Was Kristof really involved in kid sex?
But the other guy, PINCUS! I mean that's really a surprise, that he would badmouth Wilson.
I mean, WTF? Is something up?
Mrs. K8 |
10.24.05 - 10:38 pm | #
hilarious must-read with orgasmically delicious serious implications at Mark Kleiman
Mrs. K8 -- I think that is what passes as balanced journalism these days. If you write an article that slams one side of the aisle, to be fair you have to slam someone on the other side of the issue right back. SIGH
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:40 pm | #
William E. Jackson Jr.: There is corruption at the highest levels of The New York Times. Irreparable damage has been done to the reputation of the most eminent newspaper in the world. The resignations of both Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., and Bill Keller, should be on the table--not to mention the reporter known as “Miss Run Amok.”
Me |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:44 pm | #
K8: What is going to happen to these "people" (i.e., journalists) when the revolution comes? What punishment could possibly be fitting for them?
..
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 10:44 pm | #
Reddhedd: why do you think this FBI guy is leaking to Murray, and why do you think he's leaking it bit by bit? I mean, the FBI's main role was way back in 2003, so presumably whatever the source knows, he's known all along.
Oh my god. Somebody actually said that about the Times? That is very encouraging..
.
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 10:45 pm | #
thanks ReddHead for the explanation. it just seems so egregious a political spin--lie actually, if it pans out--to ignore.
andrew |
10.24.05 - 10:47 pm | #
Me: where is the link to the Jackson quote?
.
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 10:48 pm | #
Gee.. I hate to be the one to bring Martha Stewart again, but did she not spend time in jail for lying to investigators? I don't think she was under oath.
Will they be sizing up Cheney for an ankle bracelet? Then we can call him Dick Ball and Cheney
It's a good thing!
Kathi |
10.24.05 - 10:53 pm | #
pointedhead: the jackson link is the 2nd one in me's post
obsessed |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 10:53 pm | #
Wash Post article is interesting, and maybe devious. Reporters seem to be getting info from Tenet, and carrying his water. Good to maintain those sources; need new info later. (Besides, best if progessive view does not depend, up or down, on virtue of Wilson.)
But look at the end here:
"Wilson also mistakenly assumed that his report would get more widespread notice in the administration than it apparently did. He wrote that he believed "a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president" had probably taken place, perhaps orally.
But this apparently never occurred. Former CIA director George J. Tenet has said that "we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials." Instead his report, without identifying Wilson as the source, was sent in a routine intelligence paper that had wide circulation in the White House and the rest of the intelligence community but had little impact because it supported other, earlier refutations of the Niger intelligence.
Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: "This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson's report "did not resolve" the matter."
What were the other, earlier refutations of the Niger evidence.? Tihis was so clear that Wilson's report made little impact? If that is the case, what the hell was Cheney, Rice et all doing running around telling stories about mushroom clouds, and gwb hinting at same in the SOTU address?
I want to hear from Tenet more on that point.
Lastly, what "matter" was not resolved?
Not controversial that the Niger claim was bogus -- just said that.
So what "matter" was not resolved?
jwp |
10.24.05 - 10:55 pm | #
Regarding "coverage", look how the "Vice President Cited as Source" meme is spreading around the country. A story with that headline is going everywhere:
those first two paragraphs in the jackson article are doozies.
jackson uses the phrase "legally liable". that's actually something that i've always wondered about. namely, at one point does the Times (or any other major mass media institution) become "liable" for the fucking lies that they spew?
can the parents of iraqi war casualties join together in a frankenstein class action suit against the paper and put them out of business for the rest of eternity?
is there any legal recourse at all here?
..
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 10:58 pm | #
I just did a quick survey of the front pages of the various MSM sites, looking for the Cheney revelation:
1) standard google news - nothing
2) cnn - nothing
3) cbs - nothing
4) msnbc - front page, but not headline
5) abcnews - front page, but not headline
6) faux news - nada
the day dick cheney gets indicted will be a day of victory for the terrorists.
the networks are just doing their patriotic duty to protect you and your loved ones.
it is a heavy load, given their commitment to objectivity and the august, sacred principles of journalism, but they are heroic enough to bear it.
.
.
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 11:10 pm | #
Its apparently way down in the WP story. I think I remember someone saying paragraph 22 or something.
I'm in the "conspiracy to obstruct' camp. (Though my guess is nearly all will be known Wednesday.) However - and of course this is just a guess - the bombshell will be that it will be multiple counts of conspiracy to obstruct, where the Plame espionage is just the one where the full story is known and the other counts are on an ongoing investigation with many of the same players but where the obstruction is successful to the degree that an explicit narrative doesn't exist.
tryggth |
10.24.05 - 11:13 pm | #
obsessed - "dick ball and cheney" -- I'm gonna use that one.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 11:15 pm | #
obsessed and PointedHead, you must have patience. :) Tonight's story was a bit late and is such a "nucular" bombshell that the press is still shellshocked. When the sun rises, this will be everywhere.
Semblance |
10.24.05 - 11:16 pm | #
Time to short Halliburton !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Evil Parallel Universe |
10.24.05 - 11:23 pm | #
obsessed:
that washington note link you recommended was great. there is a ton of great stuff in there:
is rice that stupid? my god. wolfowitz, i believe, is brilliant, and is clearly feigning his stupidity. but rice must be a real, old fashioned dunce.
..
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 11:23 pm | #
Obsessed
Don't get me started!!!! Hows bout ' Condasleaza Rice? Tom Derailed,Harriet Mired and my favorite,"Karlma!"
Instead of knitting, my daughter and I sit aroung making up all these. Just killing time waiting for Fitzmas.
"It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas mm mm mm mm mm."
Kathi |
10.24.05 - 11:25 pm | #
I just put up a nice graphic I made for this Cheney news at Inflatable Dartboard.
Wow! Monk, that's a great graphic. Can I use it sometime?
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 11:30 pm | #
I posted this in the previous thread, forgive me for the redux, it must be the mushrooms kicking in...
I guess 'Richard the Lyin Hearted' truly thought he was Lord of the Ring for a fleeting moment.
This sublime "Cheney moment" reminds me of an old poem by the late Mr. Brautigan called:
Negative Clank
He'd sell a rat's asshole
to a blind man
for a wedding ring.
Semper Fubar
Guess he thought Fitz would buy it.
Wrong kinda ring Dick.
Ru.. Ru.. Run Dick Run
...for your life
...
I Clau..Clau..Claudius |
10.24.05 - 11:32 pm | #
Inspector Javert indeed, but no Madame Magloire.
5&dime |
10.24.05 - 11:35 pm | #
obsessed:
the only thing about that washington note link that is frustrating is that scowcroft, for all his wonderful virtues, still feels obligated, out of a sort of waspy noblesse oblige, to speak in "code" about so many issues, e.g. "armed idealism"
why not drop the "idealism" charade and just call these people war mongers who are at odds with the principles of regional stability because they possess a traitorous, passionate attachment to a foreign power that is strategically at odds with the USA's classical adherence to the principles of regional stability.
.
PointedHead |
10.24.05 - 11:40 pm | #
Did Tenet fuck Cheney?
Tenet told Cheney that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. This was undoubtly the result of a question from Cheney, as Tenet doesn't know who everyone is at the CIA. He didn't tell her that she was NOC.
Cheney ran with it and tried to smear Wilson.
Cheney is fucked.
Did Tenet do it because he was sick and tired of Rumsfeld and Cheney and their own private State department?
-
Dan Robinson |
10.24.05 - 11:41 pm | #
Sure Jane! are you talking about the firedoglake graphic or the cheney slips into the darkness one?
Everything's politics from this point on, and truth is out the window, so this is the real Hardball--expect to see many pious, self-serving statements from all of the principles, from all participants. the Times is simply playing a CYA game here, trying to triangulate their way out of the rathole they've put themselves in.
Kristof is a neutered voice to put in the 'balance' to the Cheney article, and the 'support' for Judy, as the Times attempts to euthanize her. Who cares? I really don't miss reading any of these columnists, except Frank Rich, who I get on Sunday, and skip the rest--the TimesSelect thing is just another misstep on top of this debacle for the Times.
Saying it's schadenfreude is allowing the Right to equivocate their way into saying it's all the same thing. It's not. I'd say it's more a case of 'pleased at the prospect of righteous vindication'--it's not as as snappy, but it's closer to the truth.
I think we've all been frustrated by the right-wing no-nothings who refuse to look at the evidence that's right under their nose, and twist every which way in order to avoid looking at reality, insisting that they can invent their own--I think we are reaching the point where the Truth will be shown to these people in such an unequivocal way that that they are forced to look at it, or be known a sociopath by denying it.
LeftAhead |
10.24.05 - 11:46 pm | #
One last thing, then I am going to bed.
Scooter's notes apparently record a conversation Cheney had with Tenet. But what do we think Scooter learned then?
Do we really think that this is the first time they learned about Wilson's wife? Or only the first time that they were fed the "boondoggle" angle.
Think for a minute. Tenet HAD to be well-versed in the CIA players and the issues by June 2003. Hadn't Tenet been scorched that Spring about the SOTU 16 words? And the previous fall's keystone kops routine about stuff in and out of gwb speech?
In politics, that kind of stuff is a BIG DEAL. You find out the facts.
In that context, the WINPAC stuff that Plame worked on was relevant. But what about here Brewster stuff? Might be relevant? Wouldn't Tenet want to know if there was a NOC on the issues?
Tenet knew Plame was NOC. I can just feel it.
Furthermore, Tenet either told Cheney, or he knew that Cheney knew because of who he was hanging around with.
OK, fast forward to August. CIA seeks DOJ investigation. Say, what?
Tenet has to know that the investigation will find TENET. He knows what he told Cheney, and what he suspects Cheney knew in addition.
Picture it. Tenet ok'd a referral to DOJ knowing it could screw Cheney, and knowing he will be dragged in. Why do it?/
Only if there was some serious consequence to Plame's outing, and only if the CIA would be in absolute revolt (and leak like a sieve) if Tenet quashed it.
Tenet is the key. Fitz kenw it and so did not bring him to GJ -- because he didn't want Cheney, Libby, Rove et all to know what he had.
No wonder gwb gave Tenet the medal of freedom even though it looked ridiculous in light of 9/11 and Iraq.
Gwb has probably stayed up nights wondering what else he could give Tenet.
And gwb has to want to shoot the ignorant Republican yahoos on the Hill trying to get Tenet sanctioned.
Wish I could take a few depositions.
jwp |
10.24.05 - 11:47 pm | #
If Tenet turns out to be the instrument by which Bushco is brought down, maybe he deserves the damn medal. Maybe that's what he told himself when he accepted it.
dgo |
10.24.05 - 11:55 pm | #
Dan, I almost agree with you except that you should replace Tenet with Cheney and Cheney with Libby. I'd bet ant amount of money that Cheney actually was aware that Plame was NOC but did not pass that info along to "Tool" Libby who ran with it. This is my last comment cause I know I'm bumming everyone out around here, but I would be really surprised if Cheney left himself open to prosecution. I mean the man cut his teeth in the Ford administration and made his bones under Bush the Elder so I think he knows from abuse of power and cover ups. Still, a girl, I mean a man, a man can dream can't he? And, I'll take the ever more doomed Rove and Libby as the bestest consolatin prize ever if that's the case.
j fyrste |
Homepage |
10.24.05 - 11:57 pm | #
What was the date when Tenet quit? How does that fit into the chronology?
jwp |
10.25.05 - 12:02 am | #
Ok , I'm just a dumb s---, and i can't do all the fancy stuff, so you'll just have to get there yourself, but Raw Story guy says that Libby and Cheney and Wurmser met to discuss Wilson. Could this have been the meeting in question, and if Wurmser is the one doing the flipping, could he have been the source of the leak about Libbys' notes?
Kathi |
10.25.05 - 12:02 am | #
tenet announced his resignation June 3, 2004; it took effect July 11.
andrew |
10.25.05 - 12:05 am | #
Reddhedd - The leak as pre-emptive spin? Even if so, so what? I know there is the whole evil genius argument. I'll buy into the evil, I don't buy the genuis. This is something their minds never contemplated - getting caught, the Vice President and on down, maybe the Preznit himself. Its pure hubris - they gave the finger to the gods and now the gods are pissed. They have no plan for this nor do I think they really can, at least not for a while, b/c it is something their minds could never contemplete and I think still can't in a lot of ways - complete and total failure, of being called out as really, really ordinary banal and venal men and women. As one blogger, quoting Monty Python titled an entry, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition. It happens to be true, and ya can't plan for it or spin it.
Evil Parallel Universe |
10.25.05 - 12:10 am | #
Could it be that Bush, if given a choice between Cheney and Rove would throw Cheney to the wolves in an attempt to save Rove?
HMMM Cheny, Rove? Cheney Rove?
No Brainer, he'll chose the brain.
Kathi |
10.25.05 - 12:23 am | #
I didn't read all these posts, but I still think this story was an attempt to muddy the waters regarding any indictments Fitzgerald may hand out.
Apparently this story has been successful since it looks like all the media outlets have picked it up.
I'm still not buying it. I think this is WH PR -- low on real information, high on disinformation.
Claudia |
10.25.05 - 12:30 am | #
Time for this one to go to bed...
Go back to Strobel's AIPAC/Franklin article. Its Cheney thats being thown overboard.
tryggth |
10.25.05 - 12:38 am | #
I think this article is spin too.
Think about it.
All the real leaks that have sounded like they came from the CIA or Fitz's group have gone to Murray Waas, Bloomberg, or the WSJ. All the other leaks have come from the lawyers of those who have testified. Those leaks go to WaPo and the NYT (and not often to the NYT).
The NYT isn't really to be trusted anymore since they apparently will print White House PR without vetting any of the information. If you will notice, none of the stories they print are attributed to anyone. At least WaPo and the others try to add some real attribution. Everything the NYT prints is "off the record."
Anyone with a real leak isn't going to take it to the "propaganda newspaper" -- they would take it to a legitimate media outlet where it would get a fair hearing.
This "Scooters the bad guy cause he got the information from Cheney and never admitted it and Cheney got the story from Tenet" just doesn't wash true if you think about it. If Fitz had Libby's notes, why wouldn't he have questioned Libby about them? The story implies the notes were available a long time ago. If Fitz wanted to catch Libby in a perjury trap, he could have done that without Judy testifying, if the story is true.
I'm afraid I still see this story as White House spin. I don't know whose lawyers are responsible, but I suspect it is someone in the White House who is putting this story out. I think they want to make crimes seem like they are "non-crimes."
Claudia |
10.25.05 - 12:43 am | #
Big Time is going down!!
This is going to be a total Fitzkrieg on the Bush Administration.
Kevin de Bruxelles |
10.25.05 - 12:46 am | #
re: Kristof on "mushier indictments": God, all the rats actually in the administration are jumping off the frigging ship, and a few well-paid pundits are gonna be the last ones still on board. Seems sort of fitting somehow.
rcauthen |
10.25.05 - 12:53 am | #
You know, the other reason to look at this as White House spin is because the elements don't add up.
These notes are Libby's -- yet he didn't remember them? "The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation"
" Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed 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."
Which lawyers would have seen these notes? We already know Fitz's group isn't responsible for this leak -- so who else does that leave? Cheney's lawyer? Bush's lawyer? Libby's lawyer? Could these lawyers have been with the Justice department and have seen the notes prior to Fitz taking over the investigation?
"It is not clear why Mr. Libby would have suggested to the grand jury that he might have learned about Ms. Wilson from journalists if he was aware that Mr. Fitzgerald had obtained the notes of the conversation with Mr. Cheney or might do so."
Duh. This is part of the reason this sounds like White House spin. The parts just aren't adding up to anything.
"The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. "
If these lawyers are so familiar with the notes -- who are the lawyers? These lawyers aren't with Fitz's group -- so who are they? How would they know the notes don't show the Plame name?
Anyway, I think the whole article is a whole lot of nothing. It's the WH trying to put it's defense out early.
Claudia |
10.25.05 - 1:12 am | #
Trust Fitz ;)
Me |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 1:16 am | #
Claudia, you should just stop, because you aren't making any effing sense whatsoever. Your idea is ridiculous.
As far as figuring out whose lawyer is leaking, remember that we don't know the full list of everyone who was in that meeting. Someone else in the room at the time may have flipped. And the lawyer would know because Fitzy would have been asking his client about it.
Semblance |
10.25.05 - 1:26 am | #
Semblance -- What is the point of being uncivil? Why can't you just say "Your argument doesn't make sense to me, and this is why..."?
What's with the idea of trying to shut Claudia up? "I think you are wrong" works just as well as "Your idea is ridiculous." The way you put it was unnecessarily rude.
I would be more inclined to pay attention to your argument if it weren't couched in a flame.
Mrs. K8 |
10.25.05 - 1:36 am | #
Re: Mrs. K8 1:36AM
As usual, you are far too charitable (maybe classy iz the word) ta Semblance...we don't need that kinda stuff even at 1:30 in the mornin'. Letz jest ignore 'im from now on.
NorskeFlamethrower |
10.25.05 - 1:49 am | #
Claudia, if you are hearing about this on the front pages of the NYT, the front page of Yahoo news... They are busted.
Cheney is a frigging draft dodging chickenhawk cockroach. He would never permit this type of news into the MSM, ever... Never.
The reason it is in the news, is because #1) He can't stop it #2) He can't deny it.
Busted. They are all BUSTED!!!
These guys may have been powerful, but they have tiny little criminal minds... And Fitz took their tiny little criminal brains, and he squeezed them in a vise one by one until the juice ran out.
Despite all the pressure, the heavies, the cloak of power these assholes wear to hide their criminality from others... This was actually a fairly easy case for Fitz to work and solve. No different from some "big time mafia" punk, or some hi-falluting "terrorist cell"
Fitz loves his work, and he lives to put heavies and assholes behind bars. Fitz is a master at this "game", he plays for keeps, and deals out hard core prison time to perps. Read: gray bars and green balogna.
Me |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 1:49 am | #
P.S. If you ask me, when the evidence all comes out... It's a death penalty case. Because Fitz will charge them with criminal conspiracy, they are all subject to the same penalty. That's why people started flipping out.
Me |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 1:52 am | #
Monk: I'm liking your blog. Your PhotoShopping is excelllent!
...
chimera |
10.25.05 - 2:02 am | #
Norske -- Has this person been rude like this before? I sometimes miss entire threads, and also can now and then miss who says what in a thread because I'm intently following the ideas being debated.
One of the things I love about FDL is the intelligent debate with such a minimum of trollery. Respectful, mutual support in thrashing out the data in an attempt to get at the truth is the norm rather than the exception.
Because I hadn't really noticed this person before tonight, I did what I usually do -- to state the problem without tossing any gasoline on, and in very neutral terms.
I despise bullying behavior wherever I see it, not just in the Bush administration. :-)
Mrs. K8 |
10.25.05 - 2:04 am | #
Monk -- I agree with chimera, love the graphics! -- but I have a question:
What happened to the comments on your site? When I dropped by tonight it looked like all the previously written comments were disappeared (including the one I left the other night). Are you having problems similar to what plagued FDL of late?
Mrs. K8 |
10.25.05 - 2:08 am | #
Re: Mrs.K8 2:04 AM
I haven't seen 'im before either but thatz my point, call 'em out the first time and then ignore 'em. Most a the trolls on this site don't last long but I like the way folks go right after 'em and then move on. Again, yer a class act and I look forward ta yer posts.
NorskeFlamethrower |
10.25.05 - 3:26 am | #
Semblance: The problem isn't that I'm not making any sense -- the problem is that you are trying to make it look like I am not making any sense. Who mentioned other lawyers in the room when Cheney and Libby were talking? Who mentioned any lawyers at all? As far as I'm concerned, from what I am reading, they were in a room together without other people.
Where are you getting your information?
NO ONE said Libby took the notes during a meeting with Cheney -- and least of all, no one said the meeting had other people in it.
???? If no one is making any effing sense, it has to be YOU! You are too busy trying to read between the lines. Were you there, by chance?
"As far as figuring out whose lawyer is leaking, remember that we don't know the full list of everyone who was in that meeting. Someone else in the room at the time may have flipped. And the lawyer would know because Fitzy would have been asking his client about it."
Nothing in that article even suggests there was a meeting involving a list of people. It states a meeting between Libby and Cheney and the notes were notes that Libby took. If the meeting was a private meeting, there would be no one else in the room to flip -- get it? And the lawyers these people hired because they faced criminal charges would not have been involved at that time.
You are guilty of trying to spin more disinformation. Do you work for the White House now? Karl? Is that you?
Me: I'm sure Cheney is busted, but I don't think this article is the reason why!! He was busted long ago. Why do you think he's been so freakin' quiet?!
Anyway, I think this NYT article is standard White House spin put together by Rove or someone else who isn't thinking too straight at this point. It's almost like the "Swift Water Veterans" only they tried to turn the idea around to protect themselves.
Always remember what Karl Rove once said: Most of the highly educated end up being democrats and that just proves that you can have too much of a good thing. I think a lot of the smarter folks end up being Dems and that is why it is so easy to see the holes in the arguments they produce, even though their base will probably buy it lock, stock, and barrel.
But there are glaring holes in this article.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it and I think it is spin produced by someone in the White House. (Nor sure who since I don't sit around and analyze what each of them produce in the form of lies and mistruths.)
Claudia |
10.25.05 - 3:35 am | #
What's the motivation of Libby to commit perjury? Does he feel that he has nothing left to lose? Let's see: I tell the truth, and we all go down for lying America into a needless war. I lie under oath, and we all go down for lying America into a needless war, AND I go to prison for three years, get disbarred, and go down in history books as a symbol of corruption.
Goodness, what a tough choice!
Doug |
10.25.05 - 3:40 am | #
That article made me dizzy and sickened. The top brass have beemn lying from day one and they have all been caught. If Cheney and Bush testified together, who said what?
Why lie? Seems to me these people have been put in office based on a series of lies and they don;t know the difference anymore. According to Hutchinson, they don't care about getting caught lying either. Four Americans, and I do not know how many Iraqis,were killed this week over there and The GOP spin is that lies don't matter? Do these people have any sense of what their saying?
Kitty |
10.25.05 - 4:08 am | #
Actually... It's a little harder than 3 years in the best case senario:
Time of War... Seriously, these guys could be looking at the inside of the Death Chamber.
Me |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 4:20 am | #
"Do these people have any sense of what their saying?"
No. They "believe"... Fitz knows better and truly feels that hard time behind bars cures this psycological disorder.
Me |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 4:22 am | #
I'm not surprised Pincus is playing up
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03
The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.
SNIP
The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------ http://www.washingtonpost.com/
ac...anguage=printer
Look at that third paragraph. It's amazing.
The name of Brewster Jennings was not leaked until October 3.
That's one week AFTER "the Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26. "
And who the hell was in such a hurry to confirm the name and make damn sure the network and the people within it were destroyed?
Who were these "Bush administration officials" who CONFIRMED that Plame was working undercover for the CIA in 1999 to Pincus and Allen?
Who were these Bush administration officials who CONFIRMED the name of Brewster-Jennings to Pincus and Allen?
We've heard very little from or about Walter Pincus.
I would suggest that THIS is Fitzgerald's case.
And there is NO DOUBT THIS IS A BREACH OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT BY TWO PERSONS CONSPIRING.
I wonder who they are?
postscript
Note the parallels with the outing of David Kelly.
They put so many clues out there that they are bound to be found.
Then they confirm it when someone finds the clue (and I have to wonder who it was who found the clue?)
antiaristo |
10.25.05 - 4:51 am | #
Gee Claudia, I think it si kinda a big deal to know that Cheney, not a reporter as was testified, was the source of Plame's name and that Libby, pror to talking to Judy Miller in June, had a chat with the VP on this topic. For people not obsessively reading every detail published, this has to be a shocker on the cover of the Times.
Cheney chatted with Libby about Plame, then Novak outs her - CIA operative - and Cheney doesn't go to Libby and say wtf but lets the guy lie to investigators and the grand jury? Hello? Did Cheney tell this to Fitzgerald when he and Bush tesified early on?
I dunno - but seems like a big deal to me.
BTW, I want a tee shirt with all the administration ghoulson it and the logo "The criminalization of the white house"
Kitty |
10.25.05 - 4:54 am | #
I'm not surprised Pincus is playing up
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03
The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.
SNIP
The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------ http://www.washingtonpost.com/
ac...anguage=printer
Look at that third paragraph. It's amazing.
The name of Brewster Jennings was not leaked until October 3.
That's one week AFTER "the Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26. "
And who the hell was in such a hurry to confirm the name and make damn sure the network and the people within it were destroyed?
Who were these "Bush administration officials" who CONFIRMED that Plame was working undercover for the CIA in 1999 to Pincus and Allen?
Who were these Bush administration officials who CONFIRMED the name of Brewster-Jennings to Pincus and Allen?
We've heard very little from or about Walter Pincus.
I would suggest that THIS is Fitzgerald's case.
And there is NO DOUBT THIS IS A BREACH OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT BY TWO PERSONS CONSPIRING.
I wonder who they are?
postscript
Note the parallels with the outing of David Kelly.
They put so many clues out there that they are bound to be found.
Then they confirm it when someone finds the clue (and I have to wonder who it was who found the clue?)
antiaristo |
10.25.05 - 5:19 am | #
sorry. I refreshed and it sent the post again
antiaristo |
10.25.05 - 5:20 am | #
"Kristof on 'mushier indictments': God, all the rats actually in the administration are jumping off the frigging ship, and a few well-paid pundits are gonna be the last ones still on board."
The pundits are trying to save their own skins. They're afraid that if no big indictments come down, their previous columns might come back to haunt them when they contact their sources. At least that's my guess. These columns might also be an attempt to influence members of the Grand Jury. Fortunately, the Times put Kristof and Tierney behind a firewall, where they go mostly unread.
Marysz |
10.25.05 - 5:27 am | #
What about this: Cheney resigns and Bush appoints McCain.
Bush then resigns and McCain becomes prez. I don't have much respect for McCain, but he may be the lesser of a thousand other evils.
h |
10.25.05 - 5:56 am | #
"Naming a covert operative: the basic facts of the CIA leak case."
Linda Feldmann
Christian Science Monitor
July 19 2005
"Bush and Cheney have also been questioned on the case, but not under oath."
Lis Riba |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 7:19 am | #
Here's my take on this, particularly on the questions about Tenet. Short version--there are competing sourcing versions here, but the information that Cheney apparently passed on is precisely the information that was in the INR memo from State, dated two days earlier. They're blaming this on Tenet to direct attention away from Bolton, I suspect.
Also, wrt to Libby's notes. Don't forget they're handwritten notes. Emails, you can't alter very easily. Handwritten notes? Easier to do.
emptywheel |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 7:23 am | #
Good point about handwritten notes, emptywheel, but it would also be hard to cover up that you'd altered them unless you rewrote them from scratch somehow.
Which raises the question of why the notes exist at all. If Libby wasn't going to hand them over from the start, why not just destroy them? The implication, I think, is that he saved them just in case he needed to cut a plea deal by turning on Cheney.
Swopa |
Homepage |
10.25.05 - 8:29 am | #
He didn't destroy them as he is a detail guy - plus, destroying notes looks worse than anything that could have been written.
Kitty |
10.25.05 - 8:36 am | #
I love the details of this story covered on this blog but at heart, I'm a 'see the forest for the trees' kinda person.
The Big Picture in my humble opinion is that the Bushcabal started a war against another country with lies, deception and a general lack of evidence.
Historically, the first precedent in modern times to put the international rule of law to this was at the end of WWII.
Contrary to what many intelligent people might assume, the leadership of Germany was NOT tried on "crimes against humanity"
That body of international law simply did not exist in 1945.
The American proscecutor at Nuremburg tried, convicted and executed the top leadership of the Reich on "starting a war of aggression". What some today might consider an 'abstract, technical' charge in light of the horrendous crimes of the Nazis.
Kinda like certain people today equating a 'perjury charge' as not raising to the level of serious enough crime to warrant punishment.
This is not hyperbole.
And in my heart of hearts, I think that Fitz would see it the same way. Period
It comes down to a political/criminal cabal extorting the nation's intelligence apparatus, our collective 'eyes and ears' in the world, to back up their lies for "starting a war of aggression" against a country that had not and really could not attack America in any meaningful way.
This ladies and gentleman, is still a war crime in every conceivable sense and at it's root base deserves the same punishment that it did in 1945.
I have not read all the voluminous posts to this blog, but my general take is that there seems to be very little historic awareness or even comments on this angle on this blog.
The Bushcabal's frantic efforts over the past several year to not be a party to the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague or any other international body of law speaks volumes about what really lies festering at the bottom of "Plamegate"
How about a little 'less Bush and more Trees' comments on occasion just so we know the bigger context of where this investigation should by all rights conclude.
Otherwise the practical effect to the general public of all these blog 'sound and fury' details will be just so much 'pearls before swine'
.
I Clau..Clau..Claudius |
10.25.05 - 8:45 am | #
The under oath issue is not so relevant. Martha Stewart was not under oath when she made the statements to the Justice Department and SEC officials that sent her to jail for 5 months. It is illegal to make false statements to a government investigator during a formal crime investigation. Under the posters scenario If Chaney were not VP he could clearly go to jail just as Martha did. It will not be perjury but making false statements and conspiracy to obstruct justice sent martha to jail. I am not sure if a sitting VP can be indicted on a crime, was Agnew indicted?
Also, the sick thing is on my NYT this morning (you know the old fashion kind printed on paper), the front page story regarding Chaney as the Plame source was continued on page 16. The other story on this page was that Chaney is pushing McCain in an attempt to modify the anti-torture amendment that passed the senate 90-9 to allow an exception for the CIA to be able to torture at the discretion of the president.
Is this Chaney evil or what. On one side of the page, he wanted to put a CIA agent's life at risk by exposing her cover because he was upset that her husband was questioning his credibility. On the other side of the page he wants to to be allowed to torture prisoners. This guy is as evil as a villian in a 3rd rate comic book.
Go F**k Yourself Mr. Chaney, Go F**k yourself.
Adam |
10.25.05 - 2:14 pm | #
