News Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[Manchot]

Perhaps the Prosecutor is acting in a professional manner, and simply doing his job. I give you that point; however there are far more important issues that should dominate the news cycle. The political aspect of this story is the coverage, and the conclusions some are drawing about the meaning of the indictment.

Ok, if the indictment of the Vice President's Chief of Staff is not among the most important piece of news in the past year, what is? The kidnapping of a girl in Aruba? The Michael Jackson trial?

 

[Astronuc]

however there are far more important issues that should dominate the news cycle.

Perhaps, but the fact that the VP's top aide may have violated the law (exposing the identity of a CIA agent) and then lied about it to the FBI and Grand Jury is pretty significant. The question then becomes why, and then did he act alone - or with others in a conspiracy?
Ostensibly, the Bush administration was retaliating agains Joe Wilson who challenged the fabrication of evidence by the Bush administration as justification of a war in Iraq.

But now - Lawyer for Libby Plans Lack-of-Memory Defense, By PETE YOST, AP.

WASHINGTON (Oct. 29) - The lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide is outlining a possible criminal defense that is a time-honored tradition in Washington scandals: A busy official immersed in important duties cannot reasonably be expected to remember details of long-ago conversations.

Then Cheney better high a more competent individual. On the other hand, Libby made notes.

However, I can't imagine that one would forget activities related to violating federal law, unless of course he violates the law so frequently, he can't distinguish one violation from another. Kind of like the organized crime bosses. Maybe Libby can start wearing a bathrobe in public and wandering the Mall in hopes that he will get not guilty by reason of insanity. But then that didn't work for Vincent Gigante.
If he didn't remember, then he should have stated that he couldn't remember, rather than fabricate false testimony.

Libby Said to Concoct Story in Leak Case
By LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST

WASHINGTON - The prosecution's conclusion: Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff zealously pursued information about a critic who said the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
The view of the president and vice president: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is a dedicated public servant who has worked tirelessly on behalf of his country.
Is Libby an influential White House adviser who lied? Or is he a man with a hectic schedule who happens to remember events differently from the reporters and administration figures who will eventually be called to testify against him?

"As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred," Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, said in a statement.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald drew his detailed portrait of Libby based on a two-year investigation that pulled dozens of witnesses in for questioning, including President Bush and Cheney.

Libby, the indictment against him concludes, received information from Cheney, the State Department and the CIA about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose husband was attacking an administration unable to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Libby then spread the information to reporters and later concocted a story that his information had come from reporters, the indictment says.

The other portrait of Libby, the favorable version, shows a deeply committed conservative who has been a player on the Washington scene since the early days of the Reagan administration.

Reagan made up stuff - seems to be contagious in the Regan - Bush circles.

 

[Astronuc]

In 1992, Libby and former Pentagon deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote a paper favoring the use of pre-emptive force to prevent countries from developing weapons of mass destruction. The paper later won praise from the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, which called it "a blueprint for maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival."

Libby Said to Concoct Story in Leak Case - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051029/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_reconstruction

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ok, if the indictment of the Vice President's Chief of Staff is not among the most important piece of news in the past year, what is? The kidnapping of a girl in Aruba? The Michael Jackson trial?

Only if you listen to Gretta VanSustren on Fox.

Didn't she get her start on the OJ Channel?

 

[SOS2008]

Reagan made up stuff - seems to be contagious in the Regan - Bush circles.

Reagan suffered from early stages of Alzheimer’s disease toward the end of his presidency, but those who know Libby say he has excellent memory (in addition to his notes). Also, he was inconsistent about seven times. That's like stabbing someone seven times and then claiming it was an accident.

 

[Astronuc]

Reagan suffered from early stages of Alzheimer’s disease toward the end of his presidency, but those who know Libby say he has excellent memory (in addition to his notes). Also, he was inconsistent about seven times. That's like stabbing someone seven times and then claiming it was an accident.

Reagan was making false claims during his first campaign in 1980, especially his comments about those on welfare. And then he mislead the nation in Iran-Contra, and the support of non-democratic governments in S. and Central America.

 

[SOS2008]

Reagan was making false claims during his first campaign in 1980, especially his comments about those on welfare. And then he mislead the nation in Iran-Contra, and the support of non-democratic governments in S. and Central America.

As an actor, Reagan had great memory skills, and why he could give long speeches and not use prompters. The WH/government is always going to try to keep things from the American people. In terms of severity (how the deceit is done, how often, how serious, how damaging) Bush and administration take the cake.

Speaking of which, Rove is known for his great memory of details, statistics, etc. The “I don’t recall” answer won’t cut it for him either.

 

[Astronuc]

Libby testified that he heard CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity from Tim Russert of NBC News when, in fact, he learned of Plame's identify from other government officials, the indictment alleged.

"Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true," Fitzgerald said.

"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls -- the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter -- and then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly," he said.

from CNN - http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/

 

[Astronuc]

On the other hand - an alternative perspective - which was published by the NY Times, Oct 30, 2005, which is periodically disparaged as one the "Liberal Media" -

Excerpts from "The Prosecutor's Diagnosis: No Cancer Found"
By DAVID BROOKS, Op-Ed Columnist, NY Times

. . . Patrick Fitzgerald has just completed a 22-month investigation of the Bush presidency. One thing is clear: there is no cancer on this presidency. Fitzgerald, who seems to be a model prosecutor, enjoyed what he called full cooperation from all federal agencies. He found enough evidence to indict one man, Scooter Libby, on serious charges.

But he did not find evidence to prove that there was a broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove. And as the former prosecutors Robert Ray and Richard Ben-Veniste said on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," he gave little indication he was going to do that in the future.

Fitzgerald went as far as the evidence led him. In so doing, he momentarily punctured the wave of hysteria that had been building around the case. Over the past few weeks, oceans of ink and an infinity of airtime have been devoted to theorizing about Rove's conspiratorial genius and general culpability - almost all of it hokum. Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society.

Senator Frank Lautenberg assented that Rove was guilty of treason. Howard Dean talked about a "huge cover-up." Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said: "The C.I.A. leak issue is only the tip of the iceberg. This is looking increasingly like a White House conspiracy aimed at misleading our country into war.

One may wish it, but that doesn't make it so. We do know that the White House lied about who was involved in calling reporters. But as for traitorous behavior, huge cover-ups and well-orchestrated conspiracies - that's swamp gas.

As it turned out, Fitzgerald's careful and forceful presentation of the evidence was but a brief respite from the tide of hysterical accusations. Fitzgerald may have pointed out that this case is not about supporting or opposing the war; it's about possible perjury and obstruction of justice.

. . . .

So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy.

On Friday we saw a man, Patrick Fitzgerald, who seemed like an honest and credible public servant. What an unusual sight that was.

Suscription required for access full text.

 

[Astronuc]

It was Mr. Russert's 20 minutes of sworn testimony to the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, in a Washington law office on a summer Saturday in 2004 that helped undermine the account of Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.: that Mr. Russert first told him that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador and a sharp critic of the Bush administration's rationale for war with Iraq, worked at the C.I.A.

According to the indictment, Mr. Libby talked about Ms. Wilson's identity with at least six other people in the government, including Mr. Cheney, before talking with Mr. Russert, who says he learned about Ms. Wilson's name by reading Mr. Novak's column (and, good newshound that he is, he said he was irked not to have known it before). All those people have also told their stories and could be called to the stand.

NY Times, Oct 31.

The investigation is still not over. Mr. Novak hasn't been charged, and his contact (Libby or other) have yet to be indicted for that. Perhaps Fitzgerald is putting pressure on Libby.

 

[BobG]

Undersecretary for Defense http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3437921 , but requires registration to view.

An interesting excerpt:

The indictment says that Mr. Libby and Mr. Edelman spoke by telephone on or about June 19, 2003, before Mr. Wilson's name became public. It says that Mr. Edelman asked Mr. Libby in June 2003 whether information about Mr. Wilson's trip could be disclosed to the press to rebut allegations that Vice President Cheney had called for the trip. Mr. Libby replied that "there would be complications at the C.I.A." if information about the trip were disclosed publicly and "that he could not discuss the matter on a nonsecure telephone line," the indictment says.

 

[SOS2008]

MSNBC
Updated: 4:58 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

WASHINGTON - Emerging from weeks of political hibernation, President Bush's longtime advisor Karl Rove told the right-wing Federalist Society that rulings by liberal judges will “provoke a strong counter-reaction” through laws or constitutional amendments to limit the judiciary.

“The public will reclaim its rights as a sovereign people,” Rove predicted, and “at the end of the day the views of the Founders will prevail.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9982264/

There were a couple of other little gems like that in the speech as broadcast on CNN last night.

 

[BobG]

MSNBC
Updated: 4:58 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

WASHINGTON - Emerging from weeks of political hibernation, President Bush's longtime advisor Karl Rove told the right-wing Federalist Society that rulings by liberal judges will “provoke a strong counter-reaction” through laws or constitutional amendments to limit the judiciary.

“The public will reclaim its rights as a sovereign people,” Rove predicted, and “at the end of the day the views of the Founders will prevail.”

This argument always bothers me - they never really explain what they mean. The original "views of the Founders" were reflected in the Articles of Confederation approved in 1777. They lasted about 11 years until replaced by "the revised views of the Founders" instituted via the US Constitution. "The revised views of the Founders" lasted unchanged for all of two years until they realized that all those things that should go without saying needed saying - in other words, they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to develop "the new, improved version of the revised views of the Founders".

Of course, a couple more amendments had to be added by 1804, so maybe Rove was talking about "the new, improved, no-Presidential election controversies, version of the revised views of the Founders". Since many of the Founders had a part in that version, I think you could still say that qualifes as the "views of the Founders". Plus, there were no more amendments added for over 60 years. But that probably had more to do with triskaidekaphobia than satisfaction with the "views of the Founders". Even with no new amendments, the idea of federalism began a slow decline beginning after the War of 1812.

Then again, maybe 1804 is a little too far along the time scale to qualify as "the views of the Founders". I'm pretty sure Rove is talking about "the new, improved, but pre-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". I don't think Rove likes the idea of "Congress can not pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits". Or, wait a minute, maybe Rove is talking about "the new, improved, post-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". Rove might like the other part of Marbury vs. Madison - the part that says "Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution".

So just what the heck is Rove saying, anyway? (One thing's for sure, if Bush tries to explain which "views of the Founders" he'll supply a whole new volume of Bushisms )

Edit: I guess, when you think about, Rove is absolutely correct. The "views of the Founders" underwent so many revisions in the US's first thirty years that some version of the "views of the Founders" is bound to prevail. Ahh, but that still leaves one dilemma unresolved: which day is Rove talking about - he doesn't specify!

Edit: Interesting trivia: How many Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled were there before the US Constitution and the election of George Washington as President of the United States?

 

[Skyhunter]

This argument always bothers me - they never really explain what they mean. The original "views of the Founders" were reflected in the Articles of Confederation approved in 1777. They lasted about 11 years until replaced by "the revised views of the Founders" instituted via the US Constitution. "The revised views of the Founders" lasted unchanged for all of two years until they realized that all those things that should go without saying needed saying - in other words, they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to develop "the new, improved version of the revised views of the Founders".
Of course, a couple more amendments had to be added by 1804, so maybe Rove was talking about "the new, improved, no-Presidential election controversies, version of the revised views of the Founders". Since many of the Founders had a part in that version, I think you could still say that qualifes as the "views of the Founders". Plus, there were no more amendments added for over 60 years. But that probably had more to do with triskaidekaphobia than satisfaction with the "views of the Founders". Even with no new amendments, the idea of federalism began a slow decline beginning after the War of 1812.
Then again, maybe 1804 is a little too far along the time scale to qualify as "the views of the Founders". I'm pretty sure Rove is talking about "the new, improved, but pre-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". I don't think Rove likes the idea of "Congress can not pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits". Or, wait a minute, maybe Rove is talking about "the new, improved, post-Marbury vs. Madison, revised views of the Founders". Rove might like the other part of Marbury vs. Madison - the part that says "Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution".
So just what the heck is Rove saying, anyway? (One thing's for sure, if Bush tries to explain which "views of the Founders" he'll supply a whole new volume of Bushisms )
Edit: I guess, when you think about, Rove is absolutely correct. The "views of the Founders" underwent so many revisions in the US's first thirty years that some version of the "views of the Founders" is bound to prevail. Ahh, but that still leaves one dilemma unresolved: which day is Rove talking about - he doesn't specify!
Edit: Interesting trivia: How many Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled were there before the US Constitution and the election of George Washington as President of the United States?

I am sure that he is "cherry picking" to suit his best interests.

I sometimes think we need another constitutional convention, then I look at the caliber of statesmen we have available today and shudder.

 

[Dayle Record]

My two cents. We, as a nation, can not ask people to stick their necks out, so that we may cut off their heads. "Intelligence" is supposed to be just that, not supposition or sycophancy. "Intelligence" is not supposed to be delivering the noises that an administration or special interest, wants to hear; if that were the case we could save a lot of money and lives, by giving out ipods with an unlimited itunes subscription.

 

[BobG]

I sometimes think we need another constitutional convention, then I look at the caliber of statesmen we have available today and shudder.

Never! I've been in too many groups where some energetic young officer wants to rewrite an organization's training program from scratch. That sometimes works if you're talking about rewriting an organization's first ever training program since there's likely to be a whole lot of junk there that just doesn't work. Once you've got something that's at least somewhat workable you're a lot better off just fixing one problem at a time rather than putting a whole lot of time and effort into creating something that's likely to be worse than what it replaced.

The constitutional amendment process may be slow, but that's actually a good thing. If an idea is really good, it can outlast the amendment process. (We already have one amendment that had to be repealed by another amendment).

 

[Skyhunter]

Never! I've been in too many groups where some energetic young officer wants to rewrite an organization's training program from scratch. That sometimes works if you're talking about rewriting an organization's first ever training program since there's likely to be a whole lot of junk there that just doesn't work. Once you've got something that's at least somewhat workable you're a lot better off just fixing one problem at a time rather than putting a whole lot of time and effort into creating something that's likely to be worse than what it replaced.
The constitutional amendment process may be slow, but that's actually a good thing. If an idea is really good, it can outlast the amendment process. (We already have one amendment that had to be repealed by another amendment).

You are right, I wasn't actually considering a full blown convention. I was thinking about an amendment to address the problem of corporate rights being equal to personal rights, essentially making corporations more equal, since they control so many lobbies. Another is campaign and suffrage reform, that incorporates the advances in communication. Actually I think we could go back to something similar to the original electoral college.

About the only amendments being offered both put more restrictions on persons, like the anti-gay and anti flag desecration amendments. One discriminates against a subset of the population and the other places limits on freedom of expression.

I don't want to marry a man, or burn the flag, but I don't see any reason to amend our constitution over it.

I just don't trust the current crop of elected leaders to up to the task. They would more than likely make things worse.

 

[mathwonk]

what puzzles me is that her (chosen, legal) name is valery wilson, so why is she called valery plame by the media?

 

[edward]

what puzzles me is that her (chosen, legal) name is valery wilson, so why is she called valery plame by the media?

CIA operatives tend to do things like that. Movie stars do too for opposite reason.

 

[mathwonk]

the choice is apparently not hers but the medias, according to her husband who was interviewed on cable tv.

 

[edward]

the choice is apparently not hers but the medias, according to her husband who was interviewed on cable tv.

Her name didn't matter once her cover was blown. The media uses Plame because that is the name that is recognized by the public.

 

[Gokul43201]

More indictments on the way ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=afR3bu__bPfs&refer=top_world_news

Fitzgerald to Give 2nd Grand Jury CIA Leak Evidence (Update1)

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said he will present evidence to a second grand jury in his investigation into who leaked the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame.

The disclosure, contained in court papers and also announced at a court hearing today in Washington, suggests there may be new charges in the two-year probe.

"The investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury'' than the one that returned the indictment against Lewis "Scooter'' Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Fitzgerald said. "The investigation is continuing.''

 

[edward]

A group of former intel officers have asked Bush to pull Roves security clearance. It is about time.

Posted on Tue, Nov. 15, 2005

Ex-intelligence officials want Rove's security clearance suspended

By Warren P. Strobel

Knight Ridder Newspapers



WASHINGTON - Sixteen former CIA and military intelligence officials on Tuesday urged President Bush to suspend his top political adviser Karl Rove's security clearance following revelations that he played a role in outing CIA officer Valerie Plame.


"We are asking that you immediately suspend the clearances of all White House personnel who spoke to reporters about (Plame's) affiliation with the CIA. They have mishandled classified information and no longer deserve the level of trust required to have access to this nation's secrets," the former officials, some of whom were covert operatives, wrote Bush.


Rove, who spoke to at least two journalists about the issue, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing in the case, but is believed to still be under investigation.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13175855.htm

 

[Gokul43201]

So, Woodward's source was Hadley, eh ?

 

[Skyhunter]

So, Woodward's source was Hadley, eh ?

That was my suspician as well.

Do you have a source?

 

[Gokul43201]

That was my suspician as well.
Do you have a source?

I think I jumped the gun on that one. So far, it's a bunch of underground reporting from no solid sources...but may prove to be true.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think I jumped the gun on that one. So far, it's a bunch of underground reporting from no solid sources...but may prove to be true.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html is the source for the rumor although it has not yet been confirmed.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.
Testifying under oath Monday to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Woodward recounted a casual conversation he had with Hadley, these sources say. Hadley did not return a call seeking comment.

 

[Skyhunter]

So according to Bob Novak Bush knows who his first source was.

http://www.newsobserver.com/722/story/377675.html

"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."

"So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' "

 

[BobG]

So the current status is:

Rumsfeld says he's not the source: "This is quite amusing," Rumsfeld said. "I was asked to speak with Mr. Woodward about a couple of books he's written, and I declined, and finally I was told by the White House, the president, that he thought I should meet with him. So I did. But I did it on the basis that there would be a transcript and it would be public. And both of the times that I've met with him, the transcript's there. It's public. You can go read it. And you won't find anything like that in it."

Rice's aide says Rice isnt' the source:“Secretary Rice wasn’t Woodward’s source,” Rice senior adviser Jim Wilkinson said.

An unnamed adminsitration official says Bush, Card, and Bartlett aren't the source:"An unnamed administration official quickly told The New York Times that neither Bush, White House chief of staff Andrew Card Jr, nor White House aide Dan Bartlett had spilled this secret to Woodward."

A spokesman for Colin Powell says he's not the source. Spokespeople for Tenet and McLaughlin way they're not the source:"Spokespeople for Colin Powell, former CIA chief George Tenet and former CIA director John McLaughlin did the same. "

Hadley says that others say that he isn't the source:“I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources.”

And, of course, my favorite - an anonymous source says Cheney wasn't Woodward's anonymous source."In another development, a person familiar with the federal investigation said that Vice President Dick Cheney is not the unidentified source who told Woodward about Plame's CIA status.

The vice president did not talk with Woodward on the day in question, did not provide the information that's been reported in Woodward's notes and has not had any conversations over the past several weeks about any release for allowing Woodward to testify, said the person, speaking on condition of anonymity because the federal probe is still under way."

That creates two mysteries: who was Woodward's anonymous source and who was the anonymous source that would know which day is in question (Woodward never revealed that), what is in Woodward's notes, and would know whether or not Cheney and Woodward had had any conversations about the case.

Is Woodward the anonymous source that denied that Cheney was Woodward's anonymous source? (Silly, I know, but that would just be too rich )

As to the more important mystery, we're left with Armitage as the top pick for being Woodward's source, with Hadley running a strong second, and gaining ground considering the Novak's comments.

 

[SOS2008]

They are all idots playing a shell game, which is buying time at the minimum. They should all go to jail for wasting the American people's time and money.

 

[edward]

BobG

BOB

Great post.

 

[Skyhunter]

Another coincidence

Here is the copy of a letter acquired by http://rawstory.com/other/pdfs/RawStoryFitzLetter.pdf to Libby's attorneys from Fitzgerald.

"In an abundance of caution," he writes, "we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Just a coincidence, it is not like they are trying to hide anything..

 

[Gokul43201]

Breaking News on MSNBC (right now) : "Libby testifies that Bush authorized the CIA leak."

Nothing definitive up on the internet yet...

Edit : It appears that Libby's testimony is mostly about leaking those parts of the NIE that discredit Wilson's reports. Bush had allegedly suggested that Libby leak these bits to Woodward (who was at the time finishing up his book on the planning of the Iraq War) and Miller. Libby claims to have learned of Plame's identity from Cheney, but says that he wasn't asked to leak that bit.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002313106

This article, however, claims that Libby also leaked Plame's identity.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

 

[BobG]

Hence no one being charged for leaking classified information. The President has the authority to declassify information and to authorize the release of classified information.

It does raise a lot of other questions about White House reaction to the "leak" and about the motivation for spreading the information in the first place. Hiding the fact that the leaks were authorized by the President allowed Bush to avoid having to answer those questions.

That's an interesting twist on obstruction of justice. Libby's basically being charged with causing the government to waste its money on an investigation that never should have been initiated. Technically, you would think that would also apply to any member of the administration that knew who authorized the leak, yet allowed the investigation to continue.

I'm not sure about the legal details, but that seems like gross fraud, waste, and abuse of government resources, at a minimum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can you say "abuse of power"? Technically, Bush could give all of our military secrets to the enemy as well, so there is a line here.

 

[Manchot]

I can imagine someone trying to spin this: "That Scooter Libby is a liar! He tricked his way into being the Chief of Staff of the VP!"

Oh wait, all we'll get from McClellan is "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation."

 

[Gokul43201]

If my foggy memory serves me, Fitzgerald had sit-downs with Bush and Cheney, as a part of his investigation...right ? Did they testify under oath, or were they waived that inconvenience ? If they did talk to him, and I can't imagine he didn't ask them something along the lines of "Do you know anything about where these leaks originated...", what did they say in response ?

 

[Manchot]

The President has the authority to declassify information and to authorize the release of classified information.

From what I'm reading, Bush authorized Libby to leak the information, not to declassify it. I would assume that there are channels that he is supposed to go through to declassify things, so he very well might have leaked classified information, rather than simply declassifying it.

 

[edward]

Or Cheney could have done it on his own. According to this excerpt from
from an interview, Cheney claims he has the authority to classify and declassify information. I think it was on the last page of the interview text.

Hume: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?

Cheney: There is an executive order to that effect.

Hume: There is.

Cheney: Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373634/page/7/

To me this new only verifies what I have stated several times: "There was a conspiracy to defraud the American people in regards to WMD and our reason for invading Iraq."

 

[SOS2008]

Breaking News on MSNBC (right now) : "Libby testifies that Bush authorized the CIA leak."

Nothing definitive up on the internet yet...

Edit : It appears that Libby's testimony is mostly about leaking those parts of the NIE that discredit Wilson's reports. Bush had allegedly suggested that Libby leak these bits to Woodward (who was at the time finishing up his book on the planning of the Iraq War) and Miller. Libby claims to have learned of Plame's identity from Cheney, but says that he wasn't asked to leak that bit.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002313106

This article, however, claims that Libby also leaked Plame's identity.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

It is in the news now:

Libby: Bush himself authorized leak on Iraq
NBC News and news services
Updated: 8:43 p.m. ET April 6, 2006

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

For more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

 

[SOS2008]

And another update:

White House won't challenge leak story
NBC News and news services
Updated: 4:34 p.m. ET April 7, 2006

WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday declined to challenge assertions that President Bush authorized the leaks of intelligence information to counter administration critics on Iraq.

But Bush’s spokesman, Scott McClellan, appeared to draw a distinction about Bush’s oft-stated opposition to leaks.

“There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it’s in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

What!? First of all the information was not declassified at the time Libby feed the leak to GOP pundit Judith Miller. Second, just exactly how was it in the public interest to be lied to about yellowcake, which took our country into a costly quagmire that we can't get out of now?

Do they really think people will accept this lame excuse? Well, yes, the base will. I can hear it now, "Yes, there's distinction (yeah, that's the ticket)." Otherwise I'd laugh because it is so ridiculous. But you watch, the chimp will come out of it smelling like a rose while feces ends up on others.

 

[edward]

This should be a real challenge for Smirk and Sneer. The are claiming that the information was already declassified, because a prez can do that. But on the other hand Libbly is asking for all documents relating to the incident.

These documents are now historic in that there is no longer any doubt by anyone that there was no attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake.

I have a gut feeling these historic documents will never see the light of day. The documents requested are included in the Libby trial transcript below.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-06-libby-filing.pdf

The documents requested by Libby are on page 6.

 

[SOS2008]

This should be a real challenge for Smirk and Sneer. The are claiming that the information was already declassified, because a prez can do that. But on the other hand Libbly is asking for all documents relating to the incident.

These documents are now historic in that there is no longer any doubt by anyone that there was no attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake.

I have a gut feeling these historic documents will never see the light of day. The documents requested are included in the Libby trial transcript below.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-06-libby-filing.pdf

The documents requested by Libby are on page 6.

Who cares about the legality of leaking Plame's name, but rather the motive and ethics behind it is what should be questioned. We are talking about "fixing the intelligence to fit a predetermined agenda." And does a president have to be under oath and commit perjury in order to be impeached for lying to the American people, Congress, the UN and the world? I should hope not, especially in view of the high cost our country has had to pay as a result.

 

[BobG]

To me this new only verifies what I have stated several times: "There was a conspiracy to defraud the American people in regards to WMD and our reason for invading Iraq."

That's becoming pretty obvious, as evidenced the Washington Posts article about the 'mobile biological weapons laboratories' discovered after the invasion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060412/pl_nm/iraq_usa_labs_dc_3

The most problematic comment in the article is:

A U.S. intelligence official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the field report cited by the Post, but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated.

"You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the (intelligence) community based on a field report," the official said. "It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter."

That's a false choice. Upon the discovery of the trailers, the White House acted on preliminary reports from CIA and DIA officials located in Washington DC and chose not to act on the preliminary report from DIA experts that actually inspected the trailers.

 

[SOS2008]

High Crimes & Misdemeanors

Editorial - "A Bad Leak"
Published: April 16, 2006
NYTimes

President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.

And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/o...585bf27c6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Why is it that no one in the media has asked Bush why he allowed Judith Miller to spend 12 weeks in jail, when according to him there was no leak and he personally declassified the information? If there was no leak then she didn't have any sources to protect, and yet he allowed her to be incarcerated. Why?

This is clearly a matter of High Crimes & Misdemeanors where the White House is concerned.

And moving on to our wonderful Congress, where are we with the Phase II investigation the Senate reluctantly agreed to after Sen. Reid shut down the Senate on November 1st? Five and a half months later, and still nothing!

The cockroaches never want the light turned on.

Remove all of them!

 

[SOS2008]

A Fresh Focus on Cheney
Hand-written notes by the Vice President surface in the Fitzgerald probe.

May 13, 2006 - The role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the criminal case stemming from the outing of White House critic Joseph Wilson's CIA wife is likely to get fresh attention as a result of newly disclosed notes showing that Cheney personally asked whether Wilson had been sent by his wife on a "junket" to Africa.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/

I would hardly call an unpaid trip to Niger a "junket" but in any event, the notes and other new evidence (timeline) is showing that the outing of Plame was done with full knowledge and intent to shore up the Iraq war. Furthermore, it appears the investigation may well include Cheney (and as I say, who knows who?).

In the meantime, rumors are buzzing this weekend that Fitzgerald visited Rove's attorneys on Friday, and served and indictment. But formal announcements won't be made until Monday at the earliest if it's true. Be still my heart.

We'll get them one by one, just like Nixon. Go Pat Go!

 

[SOS2008]

At a Michigan Trial Lawyers’ Association dinner Saturday night in Dearborn, Mich., the group's vice president Robert Raitt announced — according to the Detroit Free Press — that President Bush’s longtime strategist had just been indicted.
----------
Rove – not indicted, not out on bail, and wearing a business suit, not orange prison garb -- was in person at the right-wing think tank, American Enterprise Institute Monday morning.
----------
If Rove is indicted soon, as some...hope and expect, then this may have been Rove’s valedictory message...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799420/

What a continuing saga this has been. We can only hope for a happy ending.

 

[Art]

Here's an article stating where the latest rumours are purported to have started..

Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm

Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting
Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill
By ANNE MARIE SQUEO
May 16, 2006; Page A4

On Saturday night, attorney Robert Luskin was trying to barbecue at his Washington home when the phone started ringing nonstop. A story posted on an Internet site Truthout.org reported that his client, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, had been indicted.

Mr. Luskin says he issued an explicit denial to anyone who contacted him. But the story set off a fire storm, with reporters from newspapers, television and elsewhere seeking to check its veracity, and Web log writers seeking comment.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114774060320053665-thX800H42zwJ_CbAllza7zwnpRE_20060614.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
and here's the story itself

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml

The author Jason Leopold seems to have good sources as previous articles he has written on this subject ahead of the mainstream media have proven true.

And Truthout.org are still standing by their story

How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

By Marc Ash,

Mon May 15th, 2006 at 02:04:04 PM EDT :: Bush
(132 comments)

On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts.

What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.

http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml

on the other hand there are suggestions that the story is false and that Leopold was deliberately fed misinformation by whitehouse sources who may themselves have been duped by Rove's people to find the whitehouse leaks and to discredit him and Truthout.

 

[SOS2008]

New twist in CIA 'outing' inquiry puts focus on Cheney
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: May 15 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 15 2006 03:00

US vice-president Dick Cheney's alleged role in the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert Central Intelligence Agency agent, has come under greater scrutiny following the release of questions he wrote on a newspaper article penned by her husband.

...Shortly after Mr Wilson's article appeared, the identity of Ms Plame as a covert CIA operative was leaked to journalists. The copy of the article where Mr Fitzgerald said Mr Cheney made his notes asks if it is usual for former ambassadors to travel for the government to check out reports. "Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?" asks one notation.
Mr Fitzgerald has already indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Mr Cheney, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying during interviews with Federal Bureau of Investigation officials investigating the case.

Mr Libby and senior Bush adviser Karl Rove spoke to reporters about Ms Plame before her identity was made public by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e9227cea-e3ae-11da-a015-0000779e2340.html

People are also reporting that Rove has been preoccupied and a bit solemn. I'd say he is worried, which means there is good cause. New evidence of various meetings show Rove could not have forgotten communication with reporters as he claims. As for Cheney, of course he was involved too, but who knows if this will ever be proven.

To top it all off Bush stated that he asked all his staff of any involvement (hah) and was assured the leak did not come from the White House. They hoped to get away with this (along with all their other dastardly deeds) at least until after the 2004 election, and the rat bastards succeeded.

 

[Art]

If Rove is not indicted now it seems likely he will be at some point in the future.

As Truthout have said if they find they were fed misinformation they will out their sources it appears the only 2 options are;

1) The story is true and there will be a public announcement of the indictment probably Friday of this week.

2) The story is false and the whitehouse will have been shown to manipulate the press for it's own ends in order to expose leaks within the administration.

I doubt the general public will be much impressed in either event.

As for proving Cheney was directly involved I unfortunately do not think this will happen. I would imagine that anybody who receives jail time over this will be kept quiet with the promise of a presidential pardon in return for keeping their mouths shut and so given how long the trials will probably take they would only serve at most a few months.

Another interesting aspect of all this is it appears (from what's been announced publically anyway) that Fitzgerald is no closer to charging anybody in relation to the leaking of Plame's name now than he was when this investigation started which suggests there is still a lot of investigative work to be done to unravel the lies..