I don't see how you conclude that Libby was suggesting that Miller had learned about Wilson's wife from someone other than Libby in the letter. He quite obviously said "every _other_ reporter" had testified" ... whether that meant he wanted her to testify the same because he had testified that way is unclear...
Posted by manyoso at October 10, 2005 08:16 AMManyoso,
What is the need for Libby to point out what every other reporter had testified? Why does that in any way relate to Judith Miller and her testimony?
Also, what is the need for Libby to point out what every other reporter had testified, especially right after the sentence talking about why he has provided waivers to every reporter including her.
It's a clear smoking gun.
Posted by eriposte at October 10, 2005 08:33 AMi like TraitorGate better. Snappy rhythym.
Posted by Ellen at October 10, 2005 09:15 AMgreat post!
Posted by jong at October 10, 2005 09:47 AMi like TraitorGate better. Snappy rhythym.
*****
Yeah...rhymes with "gaitorbait", which is what BushCorp is fast becoming.
Posted by thunderhawk at October 10, 2005 09:55 AMI thought Rove was going to be grilled again? Is he being left on hold....sweating him a bit? When is he going to re-testify?
Posted by T2 at October 10, 2005 10:02 AMYum. Grilled gaitorbait. Sounds crunchy.
Posted by Ellen at October 10, 2005 10:04 AM"well, if you took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy then, would it?"
Posted by John B. at October 10, 2005 10:22 AMDon't gators like dead meat? So Cheney's lunch, eh?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 10, 2005 10:27 AMi've asked this question elsewhere today but would like to give it a try here as well.
could someone explain in legal terms suitable for laymen like myself why the actions of the white house intellignece group (whig), e.g., rove,, libby, hadley, cheney, etc would, or would not, be treason in a formal legal sense, not in a merely rhetorical sense.
if--
members of whig revealed the name of one of the members of a U.S. government (CIA) intelligence effort (valerie Plame) and
one or more of these same stalwarts subsequently revealed the name of the bogus company set up by the CIA of which plame was an "employee" and
this intelligence operation was not a trivial matter but an important government effort to gather info on the possible clandestine spread of nucler weapons, e.g., old soviet nukes.
then
why would they not have committed treason?
put differently8,
is there a crime called "treason" ?
what statutes apply?
what conditions must be met?
what punishments can be meted out?
or is "treason" no more than a heavy term from our childhood schooling?
thanks
Posted by orionatl at October 10, 2005 03:04 PM>I thought Rove was going to be grilled again? ... When is he going to re-testify?
It was postponed until after the Tuesday meeting between Fitz & Judy.
orionatl,
i'll take a stab at some of what you wrote.
Well what smells and looks like treason may not be treason.
Treason: An overt act, with treasonous intent, which either gives aid and comfort to the country's enemies, or strengthens this countries enemies, or weakens this country.
Wikipedia is a good resource to learn more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
There's only ever been 40 American prosecuted for treason...and not many convictions.
Since there is no "intent" to commit treason in this case...(just an intent to smear and slander)...we won't see any treason indictments forthcoming.
But it's a-ok to use the word...cause even if the intent isn't there...the actions can still be considered treasonous as an end result.
Posted by Ron Brynaert at October 10, 2005 04:32 PMLazyCoaster today....Watching Tweedy tonite, three pundits all suggest that Bush is cutting both Rove and Cheney loose to fend for themselves. The inference, of course, is that Bush is the man behind the curtain pulling the strings, not Rove and Cheney. That, of course, has always been everyone's greatest fear; that the idiot is indeed running the show. We all know that Bush is not the head of the Cabal (rather, the caboose), but it is not at all a surprise that even the top dogs will be sacrificed to retain Power. Power, that's all they want. Who the figurehead is, is not important. Let's just see how far the Judicial Committee gets in demanding James Dobson testify for Miers.....prediction: not far.
Posted by T2 at October 10, 2005 04:39 PMWhy don't you guys discuss the Senate 90 to 9 vote banning torture? And the possibility Stalin will veto it? The government we have is FASCIST! All other discussions are vanity.
Posted by Mal Feasance at October 10, 2005 05:18 PMIf they +Knowingly+ revealed her Identity causing her cover to be blown, that is Treason, It is not pardonable and there is no statute of limitations. They are trying to argue that they didn't know her Identity. Bullpucky.
I've often wondered about the meeting where Ms Plame put forward her husband's name. She was a WMD proliferation specialist at CIA, when Cheney's office asked about the Niger Yellowcake, that could easily be in the realm of her specific expertise, particularly with a husband that had been an Ambassador in the region. So she might have been called into a meeting dealing with the agency fielding this snap question.
Who else was at the meeting? Scooter Libby? George Tenet? Hadley or John Bolton's little butt-buddy when he was at State, his "intelligence liason", whatzisname?
Wouldn't the FIRST thing they knew about Valery Plame be that she was that she was a serious, deeply covered CIA operative? Did she say, "oh my husband could go, he knows people over there?" or was it a recommendation, through channels that a certain retired Diplomat with local experience might be able to help out here? How did the information that she was ever involved with d'affaire Yellowcake get back to the Whitehouse? This would be a secured meeting, no? How did that information get out of that room? Someone from the Cheney inner circle must have been in the meeting at Langley. Both Cheney and Libby were out at CIA central several times beating up analysts til they got the stories they wanted. Was it one of them? or some other Up & Coming Weasel, trading a tidbit for a morsel of power?
Some one , somewhere around this end of the blogoshere, brought up the subject of the documents themselves, the Forgeries that propelled the investigation/outing chain of events. The writer (sorry I cant remember who wrote it or where I read it, sorry) made a convincing argument that the fakes were actually crafted in Cheney's office. That explains Cheney (unconvincingly) distancing himself from the whole affair. Did Cheney ask for a fact check? Did he expect an inconclusive answer, so he could make the claim risk free? Did he not reckon with the fact that some people do still have some integrity? That he could blow off an inconvenient report, as he already had so many, and just plow on?
Was Wilson the Target?
Cheney and the really scary people around him are among the worlds largest proliferators of WMDs, both through "legal" channels, US Military Aid, and via backchannels, think: A Q Kahn. It wouldn't do to have sharp-eyed well established surviellance notice any of his associates. What other earthly reason would the thugs have for knocking out a major, vital network of people investigating the main thing that they have set themselves as defenders against?
There are still so many questions, Bravo for pulling the threads together, Left Coaster. Keep your eyes open, things are moving fast now.
They call this a "war", "a time of war", "a wartime pResident", they conspired to betray an entire chain of valuable assets in that war. Like selling out the position of the fleet the night before the invasion, this is TREASON.
Go Patrick Fitzgerald!
(and a hat's off to Ronnie Earle)
Peace
CV
Does the "mysterious letter" also read rather like a 19th century love letter, where rushes of emotion are submimated in descriptions of changing landscape?
You need some English profs on this case.
Posted by Jarrett at October 10, 2005 05:52 PMit was all a plot to roll up brewster-jennings. wilson's the beard.
Posted by smiley at October 10, 2005 06:09 PMWhy don't we refer to I. Lewis Libby by his given name, Irving? I think it's important that these anti-American, pro-Israel people such as Abramoff, Libby, Feith, Pipes, et al. be identified for who they really are.
Posted by Banananose at October 10, 2005 06:29 PMbite me, banananose
Posted by benjoya, a jew at October 10, 2005 07:05 PMthe most transparent kind of GOP smoke, that.
Posted by benjoya at October 10, 2005 07:07 PMbanananose has a point. it's only because of my dedication to my crypto-judiasm that the liberals want to tear me down. they're all anti-semites! oy, um, gravolt!
Posted by karl rove at October 10, 2005 07:16 PMer uh, me, too. the anti-semites are after me! baruk atari idunno...
Posted by dick cheney at October 10, 2005 07:17 PMyes, it's true. in fact, anyone who opposes my right to ship our prisoners off to egypt can only be driven by anti-semitism!
Posted by dubya at October 10, 2005 07:20 PMja, president bush is right. ze liberalz hate me because of mein jewish heritage. or perhaps my accountant's jewish heritage. see, who says i can't do funny? didn't you see twins?
Posted by ahnoldt at October 10, 2005 07:24 PMme too on that jew thing.
do i read the torah? sure!
do i remember the sabbath day and keep it holy? absolutely!
is there a reason G-d took so much away from his faithful servant job? who knows!
Article III, section 3 of the Constitution defines treason in specific terms, none of which applies to the acts that the criminals in the Bush administration are alleged to have committed. Here's what the Constitution says:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
None of them has levied war against the United States, nor has any of them "adhered to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." This gang has committed a lot of crimes, but Treason isn't one of them.
Posted by Basharov at October 10, 2005 08:14 PMCan anyone tell me if Cliff May has been queried by Mr. Fitzgerald? I'd like to know who revealed Plame's identity to him and when. I'd also probe his claim (paraphrasing) "everyone knew she was a CIA agent. It was common knowledge." Who else knew Cliff? Who told them?
Posted by Heimyankel at October 10, 2005 10:48 PM
Ron Brynaert
and
Basharov
thank you for the info. it helped solve a puzzle for me.
Posted by orionATL at October 13, 2005 01:16 PMHi
Can anyone help me construct a 'What really happened' series of events. I know this is speculative but I'd like to see what the scenario may have looked like:
1. VPs office (Iraq Group) looks for reasons to invade from 2000 onwards
2. They start seeking any credible sources of information to build a case for war.
3. VPs ofice ask the CIA to check into report of sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq
4. CIA sends WIlson to Niger Feb 02
5. Reports back saying there is nothing. This report is circulated in Washington.
6. Iraq group continuing to look for reasons to invade need to be able to say the threat is nuclear, they need the mushroom cloud image.
So they believe that it would be easy to discredit the report from Wilson IF it ever came up saying Wilsons wife sent him.
7. By September 02 they have set up several sources of information, from the british, from so called IRaqi defectors and others whom they have placed as sources.
9. Miller with the help of Iraq Group pens the article which was key in the administration's rational for the war. She reveals that Iraq had imported aluminium tubes from China for centrifuges capable of refining yellowcake into
weapons grade uranium. She does this knowing this information to be at the very least speculative. She quotes from "senior information officials" and "Mr. Shemri" who had an astonishing amount of knowledge of Iraq's weapons program.
Iraq group think they are in the clear. Miller interviews Libby. It is here that either Miller says she is aware of Wilson or Libby tells Miller that there is a dissenting opinion and it is not credible.
9a Rice,Rumsfield and the VP go on the talk show circuit and point to the Miller article as proof - even though they were the very ones who disseminated the information.
9b . Jan 2003. Bush state of the union states that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
9c. Mar 20 2003 Iraq invaded
10. APril 21- May 21 2003 Miller writes "Radioactive material found at test site" etc. and many more articles that later turn out to be completely false. Great scoops that no one else gets. Miller knows they are false. This is her payoff for earlier articles
11. July 6 2003 Wilson does the unspeakable and writes his op-ed saying that the sale did not happen, that Bush etc. would have known this for a fact and that his report would have been widely circulated. This op-ed undermines the core rationale for going to war.
12. Libby and Rove seek to discredit Wilson with their preplanned tactic. They leak wilson's wifes name to the press. Novak, a conservative columnist prints it.
13. Valerie Plame outed. Grand Jury investigation
14. Miller refuses to testify citing 'protecting source' reason. The actual reason is that if she outs LIbby and others in the VPs office, then they will in turn out ALL of her previous articles about WMD as willingly created lies and end her career as a journalist a la jayson blair.
15. Libby releases her bond to speak when lawyers agree to constrain the focus of testimony. This guarantees Libbys boss and others from not being a target of the investigation. Libby threatens her in a letter talking about clusters of aspens
turning together meaning that we all go down together or we all keep our mouths shut together.