My God, print news that Karl Rove is a felon in an election year? Horrors!
American journalism is a manifest disgrace. This is one hell of a messed up country.
Those slimeballs at Time still think of themselves as real, serious journalists. They really do.
Posted by paradox at August 25, 2005 01:07 PMSteve,
I can't get a response on this at the open thread. Care to take a crack at it?
Due to the focus of this blog on the Plame/Rove/CIA investigation, I am asking for a little help from those with a decidedly different point of view than mine in understanding certain aspects of the case. This is not to pick a fight, simply a request for information and/or opinions on the topics cited.
In the Supreme Court petition to deny Miller/Cooper the privilege of keeping their source secret, the opening dialog states what everyone seems to agree on, namely, that shortly after the Novak article, the Justice Department was contacted and subsequently initiated an investigation into the release of a CIA employee’s name by administration officials.
One of the items stated in support of denying “reporter/source privilege” was that in this case, “…..the new subpoenas stemmed from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury’s investigation,…” it goes on to say they were not issued in an attempt to harass etc.
Also included was the phrase from Judge Tatel that “considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars subpoenas”.
My questions are:
1. What was the “shift” in the grand jury investigation?
2. What was Judge Tatel referring to when he wrote “the low value of the leaked information?”
Anyone care to take a serious attempt at an answer?
J. West:
It's a good question, and Eriposte and others who have written about it more exhaustively than me can address it better. I surmise that the "shift" in the grand jury investigation stemmed at least from two things. First, and some may argue more dismissively of the gravity of what we have here, Fitzgerald may have steered the grand jury away from the original aim of proving a violation of the intelligence assets protection act, and towards a perjury case, which several media outlets seem to think is now a real possibility against at least Rove as well as Libby.
The second possibility, on the more significant side of the scale, which is confirmed by Tatel's comments and the eight redacted pages in Fitzgerald's evidentiary pleading to the panel, is that Fitzgerald has uncovered far more than a perjury case, and has in fact obtained evidence of a breach or breaches of national security, that go far beyond what the grand jury was originally looking into.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 25, 2005 02:15 PMSteve,
Thanks for the well reasoned post.
As you can see, your thoughts show the problem I am having understanding what is happening.
On the one hand, if the "shift" was from the intelligence assets program to perjury, that in itself could be explained.
On the other hand, the comments by Tatel seem to indicate something much more than perjury.
Of course, my scenarios as to what this all means will be different than others on this board, but I would like to hear possiblilities from those who study this case and can put these two facts together in a plausable explaination.
Posted by j.west at August 25, 2005 02:26 PMI am still taking bets on Rove walking away from this uncharged and untouched without a Presidential pardon. Any takers?
Posted by Cyber Sarge at August 25, 2005 03:38 PMThe shift? How about the obvious one?
Treason.
Taking our country to war knowing using forged documents is one form of treason.
1. Bush took the country to war.
2. He used the Niger documents in SOTU to cement his case.
3. The Niger documents are forgeries.
4. Bush knew they were forgeries when he used them in SOTU.
#1 and #3 are public knowledge.
#2. was inadvertently proven by the Senate select comittee on intelligence. (thanks Eriposte!)
All that remains for Fitzgerald to prove is #4. Did Bush know the Niger documents were forgeries at the time of SOTU?
How strong is the evidence Bush knew?
The Director of Central Intelligence telephoned the White House and insisted that they remove the Niger reference from a Bush speech more than ninety days before SOTU.
What other evidence does Fitzgerald have? What if Powell has testified that he told Bush "the Niger documents are forgeries"?
Treason is a capital crime. Ironically, Bush has always been an advocate of capital punishment.
It seems far fetched, but Fitzgerald may already have a treason indictment under seal.
Posted by John Forde at August 25, 2005 04:28 PMThat would be wonderful!
Posted by Paul at August 25, 2005 04:40 PMThe dreams and hyperbole abound!
The 'shift' in the investigation, for whatever reason, is to keep the investigation alive. The appearance of being 'treasonous' is an image which can be used to politically revile this administration; although no 'treason' has been done, no enemy of the US contacted to reveal and endanger the life of a covert field agent.
Indeed, the undisputable fact is that the public doesn't even know if a crime was commited, in the first place to justify and investigation. After 3 years, you don't know, the media doesn't know, and the court reports indicate that none was even being investigated, now. The 'Times' article gives it away:\
In the process, her identity as a covert CIA agent was divulged — possibly illegally.
Of course, the 'Times' slyly slips in this part, '. . .her identity as a covert. . .' Most people, truly interested, have already read the notes and testimony which says that she was identified as Wilson's wife, who worked at CIA, Langley -- not specifically identified as a covert agent for the CIA!
Can't you detect the lying propaganda that oxymoronic 'news' comments like this one project?
Plame had been outed by Ames and her job changed to work here, in the US, at Langley. She had been out of the field for over five years, and there is no crime in 'revealing' her, since her name appeared in the CIA's phone directory.
If it were a crime to reveal that she worked at the CIA, then the CIA official who informed Novak that she worked at Langley, on the WMD desk, for the Director of Operations, should go to prison! Fitzerald should be demanding that Novak reveal THAT CIA agents name and number!!!
Deny it. . .I dare you!
I agree to a point with Sarge that Rove will walk, but not unscathed. There will be a raft of pardons if only to protect everyone involved. Poppy did it, Junior will as well.
Posted by pessimist at August 25, 2005 05:28 PMSteve judges, "It would have been perfectly legitimate for the White House to challenge Wilson on the facts."
It would have been perfectly okay for a whistleblower to reveal that Plame had her husband hired to go on a boondoggle, too. Then, if this nepotism resulted in that CIA investigation being used for public, partisan political purposes, to further inform the media about the appearance of the CIA meddling in domestic politics.
Normally, the Left/Progressives are very much in favor of the right of the whistleblower to reveal such bureaucratic misfeasance and illegal activity. . .
No, not this time, and which reveals the shifting principles which characterize the Left and the progressive wannabeezees. . .
Disgusting and an obvious demonstration of hypocrisy. . .
Posted by Tad at August 25, 2005 05:31 PMIt would have been perfectly okay for a whistleblower to reveal that Plame had her husband hired to go on a boondoggle, too
Oh, like everybody is just dying to go on an unpaid boondoggle to Niger. Strike One.
Then, if this nepotism...
Plame didn't have the authority to hire Wilson, and was not even in the room with those who interviewed Wilson for the assignment and made the decision to have handle it. Strike Two.
...CIA investigation being used for public, partisan political purposes...
Would have been more explosive if released before the 2002 midterms and Senate vote on the IWR. Or after the SOTU and before the invasion. In fact, disclosing it in July 2003 couldn't have been at a less politically advantageous time. Strike three.
You're out and an idiot. (And another troll I can now ignore.)
Posted by Marie at August 25, 2005 05:53 PMpessimist, I do believe you're right. I just have to wonder why some people seem so gleeful about it. It's a crime against their country, too.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 25, 2005 05:54 PM...they sat on the story until after the election for fear of becoming part of a story that might affect the election.
That's not jounalism. Journalists don't get to decide on the timing of reports. I'm sure lots of things would be more comfortable to report at a different time -- like they would prefer not to report anything about Iraq until some point in the distant future when US forces are no longer there. Why don't they just stop reporting on anything of signficance to the people in this country until after its a done deal?
pessimist and iamcoyote - on Rove walking.
I'm sure Fitzgerald is well aware of the fact that GWB's pardon power trumps his indictment power. Either he's got Rove (and others) on so many counts that it could be political suicide for GWB to pardon Rove, or he's got the goods on somebody above Rove.
Posted by Marie at August 25, 2005 06:08 PMMarie quotes me, 'It would have been perfectly okay for a whistleblower to reveal that Plame had her husband hired to go on a boondoggle, too.'
Marie pooh-poohs, "Oh, like everybody is just dying to go on an unpaid boondoggle to Niger. Strike One."
I made the 'pitch' and if it is strike one, whos going out? You argue against the principle: that revealing misfeasance/illegal activity by a governmental organization is normally very much supported by progressives; those who think of themselves as 'liberals.' However, in this case, you attempt to mock the desireability of an intelligence safari to Niger!?! Get real. . .
Marie quotes me (obviously out of context,) 'Then, if this nepotism...'
Then says, "Plame didn't have the authority to hire Wilson, and was not even in the room with those who interviewed Wilson for the assignment and made the decision to have handle it. Strike Two."
You don't know who had what authority, what influence, and ignore the appearance(s) that this relationship gives, and which would normally be enough for those who support whistleblowers to lobby the media to investigate; if not the Attorneys General. This becomes even more apparent when the 'safari spy' returns and uses supposedly confidential, CIA information to make a partisan attack against the administration. This lends the appearance that the CIA, itself, is involved in partisan domestic politics! If the hated Hoover was bad in that regard, how much more the Top Secret, license to kill, CIA???
Me out of context, again, '...CIA investigation being used for public, partisan political purposes...'
"Would have been more explosive if released before the 2002 midterms and Senate vote on the IWR. Or after the SOTU and before the invasion. In fact, disclosing it in July 2003 couldn't have been at a less politically advantageous time. Strike three."
I have no concern for whatever endictments come from this investigation into no-crime. Plame was not a covert field agent and can't be morphed into one for the Left's political advantage. If Rove perjured himself, then charge him, I couldn't care less. My purpose is noticing that the Left are puling, head-in-the-sand hypocrites, who would otherwise be supporting and protecting a whistleblower revealing such acts and appearances by the government.
You're 'outed' as a purposefully ignorant, unprincipled hypocrite. . .
Marie, I want to hope that's true. I read good things about him, but we just don't know where Fitzgerald's headed. And you just know GeeW, even though he hates his dad, has learned a hell of a lot about dirty tricks from Poppy and his pals, and is already plotting his escape. Wouldn't it be funny if Bush really is the puppet, and everyone else skates but he's left holding the bag?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 25, 2005 06:29 PMj. west:
The shift in the GJ's focus probably exceeded mere perjury and obstruction of justice, although it appears these charges may be brought against Rove and Libby to pursuade them to turn.
The focus shifted, the timeline suggests, to these charges: (1) conspiracy to mislead Congress in violation of the War Powers Act; and (2) actually misleading Congress. (Conspiracy doesn't merge into the crime.)
It also seems that Cheney had a personal stake--as Haliburton's CEO, he'd saddled the company with $7 Billion worth of asbestos claims, because he failed to do a proper due diligence investigation of Dresser Industries prior to consummating Haliburton's merger with Dresser. This sum exceeded Haliburton's insurance coverage by about $5 billion. Perhaps this detail has no relevance to the GJ's investigation. OTOH, perhaps Cheney is the GJ's target.
Posted by 008 at August 25, 2005 10:22 PMCyber Sarge, no one cares what you think.
Posted by at August 25, 2005 10:27 PMThat goes for you too Taddy.
Posted by at August 25, 2005 10:35 PMiamcoyote --I'm not ready to conclude that Fitzgerald is an equal opportunity prosecutor. I just don't know enough about the IL cases against Ryan and Daley to make that assessment. All I'm working with at this point is that he's ruthless when he goes after someone, and that the appeal court opinions make it clear that he's not looking into some minor charges. At this time, my take is that he's got Rove on perjury, obstruction of justice, release of classified information and conspiracy.
Now that we have a good idea that the information that Rove got was from the State Dept INR, it's not looking as if they will get anyone for outing a NOC -- the writer of that memo didn't know that and it's likely that nobody that read it bothered to check on it. Fitzgerald knows who Powell shared this memo with -- so who in that group passed it along to Libby and/or Rove?
Posted by Marie at August 26, 2005 01:09 AM008,
The war power act is one I hadn't thought of. Let me add that if Rove, Libby or anyone else in this administration has committed any crime, I, for one, will be calling for the maximum possible penalty.
It just seems that if there is guilt on the part of the administration someone, somewhere would be distancing themself from Rove/Libby etc.
Posted by j.west at August 26, 2005 06:28 AMTad,
That nepotism charge is a classic case of kettle and pot. The current executive branch is *riddled* with nepotism. The Bushies see nothing wrong with nepotism until -- possibly -- someone else does it.
And I don't think a trip to Niger is exactly the luxury-laden boondoggle you apparently think it is. Tahiti, on the other hand...
Someone claims, "That nepotism charge is a classic case of kettle and pot."
I mention that the Left seems incapable of answering *anything* on directly, on subject -- and all of you seem determined to prove me correct! This is about Plame/Wilson -- not some generality about Republicans and Democrats!
"The current executive branch is *riddled* with nepotism. The Bushies see nothing wrong with nepotism until -- possibly -- someone else does it."
What a pathetic attempt to lie! Go ahead, point out the 'nepotism' practiced by this administration. If any had been revealed -- you mud-babies would be slinging it, daily!
"And I don't think a trip to Niger is exactly the luxury-laden boondoggle you apparently think it is. Tahiti, on the other hand..."
See? More expressions of taste (I imagine you would prefer a fun trip to Magic Mountain -- right?) BTW, you and your neosocialist 'friends' wouldn't know what was and what was not 'luxury-laden' but appear to avoid anything with even a hint of 'discomfort.' More proof that you are essentially tasteless poltroons who can't conceive of existence seperated from airconditioning and fast food. . .
j. west:
Checked back just now after a couple of days to see the updates here. Hence this delayed response.
The conspiracy to mislead Congress is really the main issue. Of course, exposing an agent and, in consequence, the agent's entire intelligence network, is a big part of the case. But even larger, is that the administration appears to have known it was committing impeachable offenses in the run-up to war, and has been trying to cover that up (fake Niger docs, e.g.)and divert media attention from its pre-war activities ever since.
Two big questions remain unanswered, at least for the public (the GJ may already know):
1. Who forged the Niger documents, and under whose instruction were they created?
2. Who is Judy Miller protecting (besides herself and the NYT, both complicit in the conspiracy)? Sure seems not to be Libby.
Also, the Iraq War Resolution specified, I seem to recall, that Congress' approval for the invasion was conditioned upon the existence of substantial and credible evidence that BOTH (1) Saddam possessed WMDs, or significant capability to manufacture WMDs; AND (2) there was a connection between Saddam and al Quaeda/9-11.
The resolution required both of these conditions to be met. The evidence need not have been conclusive, or even true. But it had to be substantial and credible on both counts. Now we see that there was no substantial evidence for either proposition at the time of the invasion, and what little there was, was not credible (faked Niger docs, e.g.).
If the GJ charges conspiracy to mislead Congress in violation of the War Powers Act and the Iraq War Resolution, then impeachment inquiries will almost surely follow. Even the Republican House will not be able to ignore its duty under those circumstances.
(And where is the second half of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report? Sen. Roberts said he would release it after the election, but like Saddam's WMDs, it's nowhere to be found.)
As for people distancing themselves from one another--I think we're already seeing it. Bush's refusal to fire Rove seems an attempt to distance himself from Cheney and Libby.
As for punishment--I agree with you absolutely. Treason is punishable by death. But there will be pardons. Iran-Contra also involved the War Powers Act (Bolen Amendment, Congress' appropriation/ spending authority). There, the Executive Branch tried to do an end run on Congress' earlier refusal to fund the President's policy objectives. The Executive Branch raised the money through private channels, and pursued its objectives anyway. This was unconstitutional and impeachable. But Poindexter's testimony provided "plausible deniability" for the President, and he was not impeached (as he should have been--remember the oath they take on Inauguration Day). "Mistakes were made."
In the present situation, the main players are all in it up to their eyeballs. Not sure there's any "plausible deniability" for any of them. Lots of fireworks yet ahead.
I hope this helps.
Posted by 008 at August 27, 2005 05:24 AM