I've heard a couple of commentators, one who knows Fitzgerald well, say his body language and his words indicate that there's nothing more to come. I had the same impression Steve did.
Posted by CG at October 28, 2005 04:29 PMThink about the Chicago truck case he is prosecuting the mayor's friends for, might even pull in Rahm Emmanuel. Notice he used the word 'clasified' and not 'covert'. You guys must be crushed, putting all your stones in one basket. All you get is "martha stewart" type charges. Oh well, so much for all your "proof". All those "evidences" y'all brought forth.
I ask this question, why didn't Joe Wilson have to sign a confidentialty agreement? In my line of work, hospitality industry, we do. Can't be giving up guest privacy. The CIA tasked him to go to Niger and no confidentialty agreement! The CIA and you're free to talk to anybody about anything you turn up. Something doesn't talley here.
Water under the bridge, I suppose. Missed opportunities.
Posted by peter at October 28, 2005 04:50 PMI saw some different things. This is not the conclusion, plus lots of reports floating around that another GJ will be paneled. Luskin saying that he has been told that the investigation will continue.
Also, I watched the entire PC. At one point Fitz mentioned something to the effect that it would be irresponsible for an investigator that ignored revelations that occurred in the course of the investigation. I think that he has found some serious issues that he is looking into. Whether or not there is enough to indict is still a big question.
Also concerning a shield law, I'm glad he said that even if there was a comprehensive one on the books, it would not have changed the course of the investigation. He specifically mentioned that those so-called privileged conversations where in themselves a crime and that reporters cannot, in effect, use privilege to cover up a crime. Additionally, reporters should not be protected from testifying when they are witness to a crime.
Posted by Simp at October 28, 2005 04:57 PMWell both Tucker Carlson and Nora O'Donnell seem to think that there is a lot more. Most important thing Fitz said: this is not over.
That being said, I think that Steve is right to pipe it down a little. This literally could go on for years.
Posted by Ga6thDem at October 28, 2005 05:02 PMpeter, I believe Joe Wilson stated explicitly that if he went on the trip, it would not be a covert op. He would go poke around, see what was up, and file a verbal report.
But as you know, Wilson has nothing to do with this case other than that his wife was the victim of a smear campaign and coverup. You must have missed the part about this being a national security issue and these are felony indictments. Martha Stewart it isn't. Now Frist's problems, on the other hand...
Posted by iamcoyote at October 28, 2005 05:08 PMladies and gents, I give you Republican talking point #3:
All you get is "martha stewart" type charges.
Posted by ann at October 28, 2005 05:22 PMThe CIA, and a tasked individual and no signed agreement. Like I stated, I'm not in any security business but I had to sign one. Privacy, remember that one. What Roe was decided on. The CIA has to have these types of agreements. Joe Wilson had a privileged connection and was excused from this detail.
Just yesterday:
*Wisconsin - State Senate Majority Leader pleads guilty to two felonies
* Illinois - 5 convicted election leaders have sentencing postponed until January
* Alabama - Former Governor indicted on federal racketeering charges
* Texas - Contractors Association pleads guilty to two counts of illegal donations to Democrats. Ala Tom Delay.
All the above are Democrats, casting stones...
The Wisconcin governor has problems with who he's given state contracts to. Senator Corzine has like contract problems that make Tom Delay's amount look paltry.
In California, the head elections official had to resign, a Democrat. Allowed the Governator to appoint a Republican to the post.
Posted by peter at October 28, 2005 05:33 PMOff topic, but I just had to laugh this afternoon watching FOX news (it's the only cable news station I get). To comment on Libby's indictment and possible jail time, they had criminal commentator G. Gordon Liddy. So Gordon, what's it like to be in jail? The anchor actually asked that. What is it with FOX news--Liddy, Ollie North. I guess Libby has a job waiting for him there.
Posted by CG at October 28, 2005 05:37 PMHe's still got a job, just not one that pays, but with him, it wasn't about the money.
Posted by peter at October 28, 2005 05:56 PMCan someone clear something up for me? Fitzgerald seemed to say (and I've heard commentators say it too) that he's be reluctant to charge anyone with passing classified info to someone not cleared to receive it, because that law is very broad and it could really have far-reaching consequences. I don't really get this. They seem to be saying that people go around talking about classified information all the time and it's not really a big deal, and you wouldn't want to charge someone with that because then you'd have to charge half of Washington. Can anyone explain this?
Posted by CG at October 28, 2005 06:10 PMScooter Libby, indicted LIER. Scooter Libby, Vice President's National Security Advisor, indicted LIER. Scooter Libby, partly responsible for assembling WMD information to take us to war in Iraq, indicted LIER. Shameful embarrassment for America!
Posted by Marylander at October 28, 2005 06:16 PMladies and gents, I give you Republican talking point #3:
All you get is "martha stewart" type charges.
Which then invites the modification:
All you get is "Clinton/Lewinsky" type charges.
Posted by at October 28, 2005 06:40 PMspelling correction to my comment above: LIAR,
Posted by Marylander at October 28, 2005 06:45 PMi haven't seen alot of people talking about the fact that rove's own lawyer came out this morning and said that his client is still under investigation..? why? because fitzgerald let him off the hook today - but required him to tell the world that his guy was STILL under investigation (because he knew the question would be asked and he wasn't going to answer it) - okhams razor says this is the most logical reason why rove's lawyer said this today.
when will we know more? i dunno - rove and fitzgerald do - so does bush and mclellan and responsible reporters should be asking what kind of deal rove is trying cut.
rat? plea agreement? what's the fuckin deal "government offical A" ?
Posted by specialk at October 28, 2005 07:24 PMToday the wacky left is doing back flips over the indictment of Scooter Libby. And many have already equated this to an indictment of the Iraq war. Time to slow down and remember a few things:
1. Libby wasn't indicted for outing a covert CIA agent. It wasn't even close. He was indicted for foolishly and clumsily covering up something that didn't need covering up.
2. Joe Wilson is a discredited hack, hired in essence by his wife, to spin a legitimate concern (ask MI5) into a politically motivated attack on President Bush prior to an election. How did the CIA become so politicized and ineffective? I wonder. Bill?
3. Despite the best efforts of a frenzied media, this story will fade quickly. Lefties: as much as you would like it to be, this is not Watergate.
Even on a day when a prominent conservative goes down, there is no panic on the right. If Libby lied to a grand jury then he's fair game. There are no excuses like, "it was only sex!".
On the battlefield of ideas conservatives win time and time again. The left has essentially abdicated that fight. Now they retreat to their normal milieu: the courts. They think if they can arrest a few conservatives it proves the Right is wrong. A desperate but typical strategy for the party of nil.
Posted by Hindu at October 28, 2005 07:40 PMHindu, your posting on this site is indicative of the panic on the right. Otherwise, why would you bother? Oh yeah, you and the realtruth and west are simply trying to enlighten the left . . . . . . .
Posted by dorita at October 28, 2005 07:54 PMDorita,
How can I enlighten the already most enlightened elitists on earth? It's impossible!
Hindu
Posted by Hindu at October 28, 2005 08:14 PMclever one, you made a nice little point by point. . . ahh but I am making your point for you.
simple mind, see this: you comment here = you are weak. You can clearly tell this is a non-republican type blog. You try to "educate" with your "points" and then try that old trick: I'm smarter than you.
sad and tired
Hindu, move beyond your small sphere. Otherwise find a new roost :)
Posted by dorita at October 28, 2005 08:27 PMDorita,
Thanks for the advice. Your complex mind is too much for me.
But as to your request, I'll leave here. Liberal minds like to fester in their own un-bothered enclaves. Easier to stroke each other without logical challenge. I understand.
Posted by Hindu at October 28, 2005 08:33 PMBut as to your request, I'll leave here.
Promise?
Liberal minds like to fester in their own un-bothered enclaves. Easier to stroke each other without logical challenge. I understand.
And all those commenters at LGF are not festering? Everything you say is for one purpose: to disrupt.
The right fights by restricting comments. The left lets all of you all in.
Hindu, can you get me in to LGF? Everytime I go there, registration is closed. Maybe you could give me your user name and password and then I could give it a go -- just like you do here (=lame attempt).
Even me, the lowliest of lowlies, with kittens and all, should be able to comment on SOME rightwing site.
Posted by dorita at October 28, 2005 09:05 PMThe right fights by restricting comments. The left lets all of you all in.
That is hilarious. Nothing like the left projecting.
When you all come up with any idea other than opposition and bad photographs, let me know.
Posted by Hindu at October 28, 2005 09:09 PMGet me that in to LFG and I will only comment there.
Nothing like the left projecting.
Like I said, can't you get me in LGF? You can comment here all night and day, but if you are not one of the chosen, you cannot comment on LGF. Why is that?
larre, you are so very right. And very eloquent. It is OUR job. Great post.
Posted by Alan S. at October 28, 2005 09:25 PMGreat points, and I think that in his own very subtle way, that's what Fitzgerald is saying. It's up to us to do the political work. It would be counterproductive for Fitzgerald to try to do that for us and would only hurt his credbility as an excellent non partisn law enforcement officer. Some of the media and democrats portray this story as one about taking us to war based on lies. But what this story is really about is the suppression of dissent. Any fool could see that the "evidence" of WMDs was flimsy at best, but those who should have been speaking out didn't, because they were afraid of the political consequences and the vengeance that might follow. Joe Wilson was both a victim and an example to any would-be dissenters. The democratic leadership can't talk about the real lesson of this story because it makes them look like the cowards they have been.
Posted by justwondering at October 28, 2005 09:58 PMHi Dor... so nice to see you are still here and as pleasant as ever.
It's been fun looking at some of the heads exploding. "it's worse then it seems" "don't give up hope we can bring down these people" "Those of you working with this administration hate America"... I could go on but that seems to be the theme in this virtual area.
As for the indictments - had no doubt that someone wouldn't be indicted... btw, who came up with that 130 years number I saw in some of those posts (iamcoyote) - it was 135 on another post?
Let's recall Henry Cisneros. Why Henry, because of the dozen or so people from the executive branch who have been indicted, Mr. Clinton's Housing Secretary has the disctintion of being the last one actually convicted - for of all things perjury. So yes it's true when it comes to lying whether it's a former president who plead guilty, a former housing secretary or a former chief aide to the Vice President - stupid people lie to official investigators and go to jail (or pay fines or lose their license or whatever) for it. Overall though claims of 130 years - check the list from the WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501286_pf.html
Net result Scooter will need to defend himself and if he's guilty he'll go to jail. That game is over.
As for the exposing a covert agent - said it before I'll say it again - there isn't an indictment coming for the crime that was supposed to have occured. If one is I still think it'll be against Joe Wilson
Reality - "It's always darkest before the dawn" you've seen this President's worst poll numbers fact is they have nowhere to go but up - and the stage is set for a major recovery by this administration.... you made these indictments out to be the next Watergate - they aren't and as a result the results to date will be ignored and forgotten by the public at large - you can scream and listen to each other's echos here as much as you want.
In the words of Douglas Adams - "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 28, 2005 11:01 PMhindu - falwell, robertson, abramhoff, feith, perle, brownie, delay .... the list goes on and on. nice company, nice people, great thinkers. yeah boy.
Posted by specialk at October 28, 2005 11:24 PMhindu - and by the way - who did your man rove rat out to get a deal...? libby? nice stand-up guy that rove.
Aces to larre's post. And to Steve; I got the same impressions watching Fitzgerald.
Apropos this 'what now' moment and in line with larre, Howard Zinn recently wrote about Supreme Court nominees: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1021-29.htm
It's up to us.
Remember, while the trolls are gloating, in reality it means that they support corruption, lying, deceit, perjury, and obstruction of justice. Also, what is truly amazing is the FACT that they are allowed to post here at TLC, yet would willfully and gladly deny our right to the same freedom of expression, as Dorita has pointed out.
Posted by Judith at October 29, 2005 05:08 AMRemember guys, Cheney (the Prince of Darkness) has just lost his evil right hand man. Bush, (the Purveyor of that Darkness) has a right hand man who will be pre-occupied with his future. As Dan Abrams said this morning, "Karl Rove is still a target of this investigation."
I do love the "it was such a busy time in the WH, that it's just too hard to remember the truth" defense.
Posted by Judith at October 29, 2005 06:09 AM1. Libby wasn't indicted for outing a covert CIA agent. It wasn't even close. He was indicted for foolishly and clumsily covering up something that didn't need covering up.
Fitzgerald made it quite clear in his press conference that Libby was the "first one" to pass pass Plame/Wilson's identity to reporters. He also made it quite clear that, because of the obstruction and lying from Libby, it was impossible to get to the bottom of the leak story. So for those who say no crime was committed in connection with a leak, the dems need to hammer the point home that Fitzgerald himself made--he had sand thrown in his eyes, which made it impossible to make a call.
Posted by CG at October 29, 2005 06:11 AMSo much for the Republicans bringing honor and integrity back to Washington. Just shows how despicable they are to risk the life of a cia agent, her kids and everyone she knows so they can go after her husband. Way to go guys, us soccer moms are watching.
Posted by monica at October 29, 2005 09:34 AMHey OTEC -- btw -- you know how to do those linkies, so why just quotation marks for the "exploding" heads? Just asking :) You clearly have your haz-mat suit on if you're sloshing around these parts -- go ahead and link those quotes -- if you can.
This statement baffles me: had no doubt that someone wouldn't be indicted Are you talking about Rove? You didn't doubt that someone wouldn't be indicted . . . ergo someone got indicted? Okeedokee.
Funny how you picked Cisneros out of that line-up and left out all the others, but at least you did bother to make the link.
As for the rest of your comment, you'll be back.
Posted by dorita at October 29, 2005 08:08 PM