Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[BobG]

The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.

Is it a bad sign when their lawyers leak, too? :rofl:

 

[russ_watters]

This is either illegal or it isn't. How difficult can it be to figure out?

Well, I don't suppose Mr. Rove is being particularly straightforward with his answers to the questions they are asking him.

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

I'm going to guess somewhat less than his predicessor's 140 on his last day in office.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm going to guess somewhat less than his predicessor's 140 on his last day in office.

Birds of a feather, I suppose.

 

[faust9]

It seems the WH anticipates a Rove indictment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101402076.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Meanwhile, the prosecutors are harrassing reporters who did not disclose Plame's identity, but only tried to find out the story.
This is so bizarrely surreal.

Especially since she went to jail to protect a http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306690 that she claims she can't remember.

Among other things, the 5,800-word article discloses that in the same notebook that Miller belatedly turned over to the federal prosecutor last month, chronicling her July 8, 2003, interview with I. Lewis Libby, she wrote the name "Valerie Flame." She surely meant Valerie Plame, but when she testified for a second time in the case this week, she could not recall who mentioned that name to her, the Times said. She said she "didn't think" she heard it from Libby, a longtime friend and source.

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

He already took care of his drug dealing buddies while we were all distracted by the Rove/Plame affair.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/04_opa_353.htm

 

[Manchot]

According to this article, Cheney's office is actually the focus of the investigation. Is it possible that Cheney himself might be indicted? It would almost make sense: why would Scooter Libby allow Judith Miller to be released from her bonds of confidentiality unless he had full immunity? That is, is it possible that Fitzgerald offered immunity to Libby to testify against Cheney?

 

[SOS2008]

According to this article, Cheney's office is actually the focus of the investigation. Is it possible that Cheney himself might be indicted? It would almost make sense: why would Scooter Libby allow Judith Miller to be released from her bonds of confidentiality unless he had full immunity? That is, is it possible that Fitzgerald offered immunity to Libby to testify against Cheney?

It would be nice if they all are charged, including Miller who is just another WH pundit.

 

[Astronuc]

This story just gets weirder - but then this is the Bush administration.

Inaccurate Info May Help CIA Leak Probe, By JOHN SOLOMON and PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff apparently gave New York Times reporter Judith Miller inaccurate information about where Valerie Plame worked in the CIA, a mistake that could be important to the criminal investigation.

Miller's notes say I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told her on July 8, 2003, that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control unit.

Plame, Wilson's wife, never worked for WINPAC, which is on the overt side of the CIA. She worked on the CIA's secret side, the directorate of operations, according to three people familiar with her work for the spy agency.

The three all spoke on condition of anonymity, citing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's ongoing grand jury investigation into the leak of Plame's identity in 2003.

Whatever Fitzgerald decides, any public statements he makes will be made in Washington, rather than in Chicago, where he is based as U.S. attorney, spokesman Randall Samborn said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation
So presumably identifying her in public would be a crime. Now why didn't Novak know that? And did his sources know that?

 

[kat]

The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.

curious where you got this from, I had read that he was offered a misdimeanor charge as a plea bargain and that he refused it...

 

[kat]

aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

 

[faust9]

aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

Enjoy:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_Act
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_15.html

 

[Skyhunter]

aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

I just cannot understand the contradiction here. I can understand loyalty to an ideology. But this goes way beyond ideology.

For someone from a military family that is so pro US, why do you want to defend, what is obviously an act that harmed the US?

Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic. One who was right when the president was wrong. (Or intentionally lying.) An action that George Herbert Walker Bush called treason.

 

[Astronuc]

Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic.

The act of exposing Ms. Plame did not discredit her husband, Mr. Wilson. Rather the act was pure retaliation - not to mention possibly illegal.

Doesn't seem the type of behavior one would expect from an official in high public office, or rather, who works for someone in high public office.

Seems like Watergate behavior all over again.

On the other hand, if one wanted to eliminate any possible dissent in the nation's intelligence structure, this is a way to do it.

 

[faust9]

Juicy news from the rumor mill:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html

 

[TRCSF]

Juicy news from the rumor mill:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html

Should get pretty interesting now.

 

[Skyhunter]

The act of exposing Ms. Plame did not discredit her husband, Mr. Wilson. Rather the act was pure retaliation - not to mention possibly illegal.

If you remember the talking points to discredit Wilson.

He is an idiot who didn't know how to investigate, the only reason he was there was because his wife sent him.

I remember seeing Ann Coulter on Geraldo. She told a story as if she were relating exactly what happened. I was incredulous at the time because she made it sound like she was telling the story of how exposing Valerie Plame was an innocent mistake. I was incredulous since at the time no one knew who exposed Valerie Plame Wilson.

She said, and I paraphrase.

"Robert Novak was asking the White House source."

"Why did you send this moron in the first place?"

"We didn't, his wife sent him. She works for the CIA."

The reason was obvious, they wanted to discredit him by saying he was a nobody, sent at the behest of his wife.

Remember how they accused him of saying Dick Cheney sent him. When all he said was that The Vice Presidents office had requested that the CIA look into the allegations that Iraq was trying to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger.

 

[Manchot]

curious where you got this from, I had read that he was offered a misdimeanor charge as a plea bargain and that he refused it...

No, you're thinking of DeLay.

 

[kat]

I just cannot understand the contradiction here. I can understand loyalty to an ideology. But this goes way beyond ideology.
For someone from a military family that is so pro US, why do you want to defend, what is obviously an act that harmed the US?
Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic. One who was right when the president was wrong. (Or intentionally lying.) An action that George Herbert Walker Bush called treason.

I have no clue why you're directing this drivel towards me in regards to my comment. I'm curious as to where this hearing is heading and how the law is being applied. Are we looking at something in the nature of espionage? strictly perjury? Is the law really applicable as it has been portrayed? etc. Is anything at all going to come of it..or has it just been much ado about nothing with a great big bill to the taxpayer?

 

[kat]

No, you're thinking of DeLay.

oops, you're right!..I guess I shouldn't be reading news sites and posting at the same time..

 

[kat]

Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*

 

[Manchot]

because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*

Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.

 

[SOS2008]

Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.

Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?). The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.

 

[faust9]

The rats are turning on each other now:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html

Dick, you're next hehehehe

 

[Manchot]

Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?). The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.

Yeah, you're exactly right. If this were to happen, you can pretty much guarantee that the Republican candidate in 2008 will have as little to do with the Bush administration as possible.

 

[Informal Logic]

Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.

The rumor is that Rove has been canceling speaking engagements. Who do you think has the most affect, Cheney or Rove?

The rats are turning on each other now:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html

Dick, you're next hehehehe

And in the begininng there were the neocon masters - former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

 

[SOS2008]

Secrets, Evasions and Classified Reports
The CIA leak case isn’t just about whether top officials will be indicted. A larger issue is what Judith Miller’s evidence says about White House manipulation of the media.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET Oct. 19, 2005

Oct. 19, 2005 - The lengthy account by New York Times reporter Judy Miller about her grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case inadvertently provides a revealing window into how the Bush administration manipulated journalists about intelligence on Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
----------
With no weapons of mass destruction having been found in Iraq and new questions being raised about the case for war, Libby assured Miller that day that the still-classified document, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), contained even stronger evidence that would support the White House’s conclusions about Iraq’s weapons programs, according to Miller’s account.

In fact, a declassified version of the NIE was publicly released just 10 days later, and it showed almost precisely the opposite. The NIE, it turned out, contained caveats and qualifiers that had never been publicly acknowledged by the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq. It also included key dissents by State Department intelligence analysts, Energy Department scientists and Air Force technical experts about some important aspects of the administration’s case.

The assertion that still-secret material would bolster the administration’s claims about Iraqi WMD was “certainly not accurate, it was not true,” says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who coauthored a study last year, titled “A Tale of Two Intelligence Estimates,” about different versions of the NIE that were released. If Miller’s account is correct, Libby was “misrepresenting the intelligence” that was contained in the document, she said.

For more - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9756141/site/newsweek/

The Downing Street Memo didn't result in impeachment -- May justice prevail!

 

[Skyhunter]

I have no clue why you're directing this drivel towards me in regards to my comment. I'm curious as to where this hearing is heading and how the law is being applied. Are we looking at something in the nature of espionage? strictly perjury? Is the law really applicable as it has been portrayed? etc. Is anything at all going to come of it..or has it just been much ado about nothing with a great big bill to the taxpayer?

I think there is a big difference between Whitewater, a real estate deal, and exposing and endangering US intelligence assets.

because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*

If Rice is smart, and I am not so sure anymore, she will keep her distance and hope that her lies and role in the media distortion to sell an elective war will be forgotten. It appears she is not that bright, lately she has been somewhat vigorously re-framing the argument for the PNAC policy.

 

[kat]

I think there is a big difference between Whitewater, a real estate deal, and exposing and endangering US intelligence assets.

What...does whitewater...or anything during the clinton admin have to do with my question? Do you always create commentary to non-existent comments?...hello...?:yuck:

 

[kat]

Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?).

What happens today..if turned around by the time the 2008 election year comes, will have little effect on the elections. Americans have somewhat short term memories and will vote according to how they feel at the time not how they felt a year earlier. Other then that, mentioning Condi was a bit of a jest as I know so many here hate the poor woman.

The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.

The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.

 

[BobG]

The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.

That would be desperate. If the Bush faction of the Republican Party still controls the party by 2008, the Republican Party wouldn't be worth belonging to, anyway.

Are they really going to close around a 'political consultant' that was groomed by Watergate convictee Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater (the "Happy Hatchetman"), was arrested for his own criminal campaign offenses (the 1970 Dixon campaign, where Rove stole letterheads from the Democratic campaign office and invited the homeless to a Dixon fundraiser), and was even removed from Bush I's staff for attacking a key contributor Rove had a personal vendetta against?

Besides, a significant portion are beginning to close ranks. Only nine Republicans (Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, and Stevens) voted against McCain's anti-torture amendment to the defense spending bill. Forty-five or about 82% of Senate Republicans closed ranks in spite of the threat of a Bush veto.

Politicians are politicians. They're pretty adept at moving away from a lost position to one with a little more strength. Most Republican Congressmen will be no different, especially with the threat of the 2006 elections looming.

 

[faust9]

That would be desperate. If the Bush faction of the Republican Party still controls the party by 2008, the Republican Party wouldn't be worth belonging to, anyway.
Are they really going to close around a 'political consultant' that was groomed by Watergate convictee Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater (the "Happy Hatchetman"), was arrested for his own criminal campaign offenses (the 1970 Dixon campaign, where Rove stole letterheads from the Democratic campaign office and invited the homeless to a Dixon fundraiser), and was even removed from Bush I's staff for attacking a key contributor Rove had a personal vendetta against?
Besides, a significant portion are beginning to close ranks. Only nine Republicans (Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, and Stevens) voted against McCain's anti-torture amendment to the defense spending bill. Forty-five or about 82% of Senate Republicans closed ranks in spite of the threat of a Bush veto.
Politicians are politicians. They're pretty adept at moving away from a lost position to one with a little more strength. Most Republican Congressmen will be no different, especially with the threat of the 2006 elections looming.

The very best thing Bush can do is to admit he was wrong, and replace all of his ill-advisors. Reagan did this in 85-86 because of Iran-Contra. Reagan also accepted responsibility for his failings either direct or indirect on various occasions. Bush will continue to weaken as long as he maintains the status quoe. He needs to mix things up. He needs to admit error. He won't though IMO so we'll see an increasingly weak president and a congress that is itself in flux (29% approval ratings for congress doesn't translate to relection for members).

 

[faust9]

Look what I found. Would the special prosecuter make a web page for nothing or will we see some major things coming down the pipe?

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that the reason for speculation that Cheney may be indicted is that a number of pointed questions from Fitzgerald focused on Cheney - what he knew and when he knew it.

It looks like the the heads are saying Rove for sure, probably Libby, maybe others... There is also growing speculation that this could be 1974 all over again.

 

[Gokul43201]

The very best thing Bush can do is to admit he was wrong, and replace all of his ill-advisors. Reagan did this in 85-86 because of Iran-Contra.

What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...

 

[faust9]

What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...

I didn't even think of that! Too funny.