Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Somme]

Diet coke is bad for you, though.

 

[shereads]

No point...well maybe one, that both parties are a fraught with corruption in this day and age. Both parties have so removed themselves from the American people as to be unrecognizable to our forefathers.

Yes, but your party beats up puppies and stomps kittens and chose Jesse Helms to represent us in the U.N. You elected George W. Bush president, for chrissake. Not president of the Kiwanis Club, but of the whole United States! Not once, but twice. WTF?

For worst political party, this presidency alone qualifies the Republicans to have their jersey retired. It's no contest.

 

[shereads]

Diet coke is bad for you, though.

SOMME! Where have you been?

 

[S-Des]

No point...well maybe one, that both parties are a fraught with corruption in this day and age. Both parties have so removed themselves from the American people as to be unrecognizable to our forefathers.

That's just ridiculous Zeb, everyone knows that Scooter Libby lying about something that turned out to not be a crime is far more corrupt than William Jefferson having $100,000 of bribe money in his freezer. After all, Pelosi immediately appointed him to the Homeland Security committee after taking her new position. Don't you feel safer already?

 

[shereads]

That's just ridiculous Zeb, everyone knows that Scooter Libby lying about something that turned out to not be a crime is far more corrupt than William Jefferson having $100,000 of bribe money in his freezer. After all, Pelosi immediately appointed him to the Homeland Security committee after taking her new position. Don't you feel safer already?

Don't forget those girls that Clinton raped and murdered when he was governor of Arkansas.



Where do you people get this stuff? Does the Heritage Foundatioin have a comic book?

BTW, this trial didn't determine that no crime was committed, but only that Libby lied during the investigation of a crime for which no one has yet been charged - or will be.

Valerie Plame was working undercover in a terror investigation; revealing her identity placed informants in danger and - as you people would be shrieking if this had happened under a Democratic administration - abetted terrorism.

The fact that the wrong man was charged and not the ones responsible is the primary topic here. Not pardons, and not the seriousness of poor Scooter's attempt to help with the cover-up. GWB did promise, after all, a "new era of accountability."

Who's been held accountable so far?

Not Ahmad Chalabi, who continued on our payroll for nearly a year after it was revealed that he provided false intelligence. Not the man himself, who set the tone for Abu Garaib when he publically dissed the Geneva Conventions. Not Cheney, who was on record as wanting to invade Iraq before he was elected to office, and who will ultimately benefit from Halliburton Industries' lucrative post-war contracts. (Iraq may be a mess, but it's the kind of mess that makes rich pickings for the shrewd and the conscienceless.) Not Karl Rove, who specializes in smearing enemies of the White House, and is almost certainly the brain behind the attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson by using his wife.

So far, Bush/Cheney's era of accountability has netted only the red-shirts: expendable, easily targeted, easily forgotten. The half-dozen low-ranking military personnel who took the fall for Abu Garaib, having committed acts they had reason to believe their were commander in chief would applaud. Scooter Libby, the man least likely to be missed and most likely to keep quiet about his bosses in exchange for the party's gratitude and a likely pardon.

Get real. You people have a lot to answer for, and you might as well accept it.

 

[S-Des]

Don't forget those girls that Clinton raped and murdered when he was governor of Arkansas.



Where do you people get this stuff? Does the Heritage Foundatioin have a comic book?

BTW, this trial didn't determine that no crime was committed, but only that Libby lied during the investigation of a crime for which no one has yet been charged - or will be. Valerie Plame was working undercover; revealing her identity placed informants in danger and - as you people would be shrieking if this had happened under a Democratic administration - abetted terrorism.

The fact that the wrong man was charged and not the ones responsible is the primary topic here. Not pardons, and not the seriousness of poor Scooter's attempt to help with the cover-up. GWB did promise, after all, a "new era of accountability."

Who's been held accountable so far? Not Ahmad Chalabi, who continued on our payroll for nearly a year after it was revealed that he provided false intelligence. Not the man himself, who set the tone for Abu Garaib when he publically dissed the Geneva Conventions. Not Cheney, who was on record as wanting to invade Iraq before he was elected to office, and who will ultimately benefit from Halliburton Industries' lucrative post-war contracts. (Iraq may be a mess, but it's the kind of mess that makes rich pickings for the shrewd and the conscienceless.) Not Karl Rove, who specializes in smearing enemies of the White House, and is almost certainly the brain behind the attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson by using his wife.

So far, Bush/Cheney's era of accountability has netted only the red-shirts: expendable, easily targeted, easily forgotten. The half-dozen low-ranking military personnel who took the fall for Abu Garaib, having committed acts they had reason to believe their were commander in chief would applaud. Scooter Libby, the man least likely to be missed and most likely to keep quiet about his bosses in exchange for the party's gratitude and a likely pardon.

Get real. You people have a lot to answer for, and you might as well accept it.

You know the first sign of a bigot? Liberal (pun intended) use of the phrase "you people". I've seen you do it to a number of AHers who disagreed with you about things. At what point did I ever identify myself as a conservative (let alone a Republican)? Valerie was undercover? Really? What a surprise, considering the person who wrote the law was on last night and pointed out she never was, let alone at the time of the "outing". Also, the guy who leaked to reporters (Armitage) was known by the FBI before Fitzgerald was appointed, yet he was given immunity so he could testify against Libby. There is no further trail for this case, Fitzgerald said before the trial ever started that the investigation was over. All we got out of the millions spent (and a reporter jailed) was 4 guilty verdicts for lying by a guy who has never been elected to anything.

She never had her cover blown, the FBI or CIA never said she did (and Fitzgerald never claimed she did). Oh yeah, about the "plot" to discredit Wilson...A reporter asked why they would send a Bush administration critic with no specific expertise in the area to investigate the claims and was told it was because his wife recommended him for the job (which was true). Guess we've officially stretched the definition of discrediting.

 

[shereads]

You know the first sign of a bigot? Liberal (pun intended) use of the phrase "you people". I've seen you do it to a number of AHers who disagreed with you about things. At what point did I ever identify myself as a conservative (let alone a Republican)? Valerie was undercover? Really? What a surprise, considering the person who wrote the law was on last night and pointed out she never was, let alone at the time of the "outing". Also, the guy who leaked to reporters (Armitage) was known by the FBI before Fitzgerald was appointed, yet he was given immunity so he could testify against Libby. There is no further trail for this case, Fitzgerald said before the trial ever started that the investigation was over. All we got out of the millions spent (and a reporter jailed) was 4 guilty verdicts for lying to a guy who has never been elected to anything.

She never had her cover blown, the FBI or CIA never said she did (and Fitzgerald never claimed she did). Oh yeah, about the "plot" to discredit Wilson...A reporter asked why they would send a Bush administration critic with no specific expertise in the area to investigate the claims and was told it was because his wife recommended him for the job (which was true). Guess we've officially stretched the definition of discrediting.

How do I know you're a conservative? Because you recite the party line.

Yes, I use "you people" to describe the half-dozen or so neocons here because your debate tactics and talking points are so similar it's as if you're reading from cue cards. When confronted with the inexcusable, quote Fox News or some other embedded source and carefully avoid the use of the name; or change the subject. When in doubt, bring up Bill Clinton. At all costs, avoid the topic of Ahmad Chalabi or the 'shaped evidence' that led to a disastrous war. Instead, bring up a cash bribe in someone's freezer. Do not acknowledge the most salient points from the post to which you're replyiing. Instead, display some righteous indignation and use it to change the subject. Never, ever acknowledge the points where you're weak.

Which brings me to the point that you will either ignore or use as inspiration for a new, quasi-related topic - because you must not, cannot, acknowledge the simple truth of it: How ironic that your defense of Scooter Libby refered to him as having been convicted "of lying about something that turned out not to be a crime." Adultery is also not a crime. But you people (Republicans, neocons, Bush apologists, etc.) used a lie about adultery as a reason to impeach a president.

So I take it that lying about a White House coverup is not that bad a thing, but lying about your personal life makes someone unfit to hold public office? Which is it?

 

[S-Des]

How do I know you're a conservative? Because you recite the party line.

Yes, I use "you people" to describe the half-dozen or so neocons here because your debate tactics and talking points are so similar it's as if you're reading from cue cards. When confronted with the inexcusable, quote Fox News or some other embedded source and carefully avoid the use of the name; or change the subject. When in doubt, bring up Bill Clinton.

Which brings me to the point that you will either ignore or use as inspiration for a new, quasi-related topic - because you must not, cannot, acknowledge the simple truth of it: How ironic that your defense of Scooter Libby refered to him as having been convicted "of lying about something that turned out not to be a crime." Adultery is also not a crime. But you people (Republicans, neocons, Bush apologists, etc.) used a lie about adultery as a reason to impeach a president.

So I take it that lying about a White House coverup is not that bad a thing, but lying about your personal life makes someone unfit to hold public office? Which is it?

And who says I was in favor of the Clinton impeachment? You really are a peach. You realize you sound exactly like every other racist, sexist, homophobe, etc... And I should explain myself to you why?

Speaking of party lines, since you insist that Plame was 007 in a dress, could you please explain why Fitzgerald didn't prosecute the person who actually leaked her name to the press (which was what the investigation was about in the first place).

 

[shereads]

And who says I was in favor of the Clinton impeachment? You really are a peach. You realize you sound exactly like every other racist, sexist, homophobe, etc... And I should explain myself to you why?

I'm neither racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, anti-Islamic or a bigot in most other ways. But yeah, I hate neocons and have no respect whatsoever for the politics of hypocrisy. I'm an anti-neocon bigot, and anti-Republican as long as neocons and religious fundamentalists are allowed to be in charge of the party.

(I have to disagree that saying "you people" is the first sign of a bigot. It's actually the second, right after supporting the political party that officially favors a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, fought the Civil Rights Act, and has been on the oppposing side in every major attempt to legislate against bigotry.)

Why would I assume you're with the faction who rewarded one president for lying to achieve support for war, after supporting the impeachment of one who lied about adultery? My first clue was that you were awfully eager to bring Nancy Pelosi into this thread as a fresh target, as you jumped on the "What about Clinton" bandwagon that seems to show up in every parade. As if the Clintons had invented corruption and no one else could possibly match heir evil. Of course, I could be mistaken and you might be a bleeding-heart liberal who just happens to think GWB gets a bum rap.

could you please explain why Fitzgerald didn't prosecute the person who actually leaked her name to the press (which was what the investigation was about in the first place).

Hmm. Let's see...Why would the wrong person be prosecuted in a case involving the vice president of the United States, the White House chief of staff, and some other people? That is a mystery.

To put it another way, if the whole thing was blown out of proportion and no real harm was done - none of it intentionally - then why didn't the White House cooperate immediately?

Why did the President express outrage over the incident? If no harm was done, why should he even address it, much less be outraged?

Why, after the outraged president pledged to make sure the responsible person was held accountable, did it take months for the Justice Department to appoint an investigator?

Why did the Justice Department then give the White House a day of warning before seizing e-mail records and other evidence that might have proven no crime was committed - or might have led to someone more culpable than Scooter Libby?

And why, if this was no big deal, did Scooter Libby twice contradict his own account of what happened?

As for why you should explain yourself, especially regarding the separate standards for Clinton's lie and Libby's, I never imagined for a moment that you'd try.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Speaking of party lines, since you insist that Plame was 007 in a dress, could you please explain why Fitzgerald didn't prosecute the person who actually leaked her name to the press (which was what the investigation was about in the first place).

In Prosecutor Fitzgerald's comments he said, because of the way the law is written, it would have been very difficult to gain a conviction for outting Plame. Furthermore, if he had gone after Libby, Rove or Chaney for the crime, suddenly every document in the government would suddenly have been classified and would have been unattainable by either the defense or prosecution. As it is, the White House felt protected enough from prosecution that they didn't classify anything but the most dammning records in a spin to appear to be helping their friend Libby.

Since, Plame was, in fact, an employee of the CIA and her employment was not general knowlege (in fact the CIA refuses to acknowlege she even worked for them prior to 2000, even though it's now known she worked there for 20 years). That sounds pretty "covert" to most people.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

To put it another way, if the whole thing was blown out of proportion and no real harm was done - none of it intentionally - then why didn't the White House cooperate immediately?

Why did the President express outrage over the incident?

Why, after the outrated president pledged to make sure the responsible person was held accountable, did it take months for the Justice Department to appoint an investigator?

Why did the Justice Department then give the White House a day of warning before seizing e-mail records and other evidence that might have proven no crime was committed - or might have led to someone more culpable than Scooter Libby?

And why, if this was no big deal, did Scooter Libby twice contradict his own account of what happened?

As for why you should explain yourself, especially regarding the separate standards for Clinton's lie and Libby's, I never imagined for a moment that you'd try.

On another point, why is Rove still working at the White House after Bush swore on national television that anyone involved in breaking the law or leaked classified information would be fired? It's absolutely known now from testimony at the Libby trial that Rove was the leak.

 

[shereads]

On another point, why is Rove still working at the White House after Bush swore on national television that anyone involved in breaking the law or leaked classified information would be fired? It's absolutely known now from testimony at the Libby trial that Rove was the leak.

Because getting rid of Rove would be like snippiing the strings that work Bush's arms and legs.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yes, but your party beats up puppies and stomps kittens and chose Jesse Helms to represent us in the U.N. You elected George W. Bush president, for chrissake. Not president of the Kiwanis Club, but of the whole United States! Not once, but twice. WTF?

For worst political party, this presidency alone qualifies the Republicans to have their jersey retired. It's no contest.

Not my party I'm a card carrying Libertarian so don't blame me for Bush, either of them.

But I will blame you for Clinton and Ted Kenndy and the Hildabeast.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That's just ridiculous Zeb, everyone knows that Scooter Libby lying about something that turned out to not be a crime is far more corrupt than William Jefferson having $100,000 of bribe money in his freezer. After all, Pelosi immediately appointed him to the Homeland Security committee after taking her new position. Don't you feel safer already?

Yeah, so safe I turned in all my firearms 'cuz I know I can sleep safe now that there are honest politicians heading up the committee on Homeland Security.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...Valerie was undercover? Really? What a surprise, considering the person who wrote the law was on last night and pointed out she never was, let alone at the time of the "outing". Also, the guy who leaked to reporters (Armitage) was known by the FBI before Fitzgerald was appointed, yet he was given immunity so he could testify against Libby.

Jesus H. Christ! Half the fucking West Wing was leaking! Rove, Libby, Armitage, Fleischer in admitted testimony, at the direction of Cheney and with Bush's approval! [The NIE was declassified by the President and only he, Cheney and Libby knew about it] Armitage was never given immunity - he wasn't prosecuted because A. they couldn't prove he knew she was covert, and B. he cooperated with the rest of the investigation. He didn't testify at the trial, only before the grand jury. The "person who wrote the law", I assume you mean Victoria Toensing, is now a well-known partisan hack. Her hyped op-ed in the WaPo was full of inaccuracies and distortions and was widely construed as a thinly-veiled attempt at jury-tampering.

All we got out of the millions spent (and a reporter jailed) was 4 guilty verdicts for lying by a guy who has never been elected to anything.

I know you didn't bring up the Clinton investigations, but do you have any idea how many tens of millions was spent on those? How many people involved? How fruitless they were in bringing any charges, let alone convictions? How Clinton's associates were jailed and/or threatened for refusing to shape their testimony to Starr's liking? And what does the fact that Libby was never elected have to do with anything?

She never had her cover blown, the FBI or CIA never said she did (and Fitzgerald never claimed she did). Oh yeah, about the "plot" to discredit Wilson...A reporter asked why they would send a Bush administration critic with no specific expertise in the area to investigate the claims and was told it was because his wife recommended him for the job (which was true).

Her covert status was not discussed at the trial because A. it wasn't germane to the charges of perjury and obstruction; B. it would have opened up the possibility of introducing a bunch of classified information that would have given the defense the opportunity to argue that they couldn't put up a defense because of national security concerns; C. the judge refused to admit arguments about her status, and D. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO TALK ABOUT THE STATUS OF A CIA AGENT! Toensing knows this, of course, yet uses the specious argument anyway. Some fucking authority.
As for the canard that Wilson was not qualified, he was a former Ambassador to both Iraq and in the area of central Africa, had contacts that the current Ambassador did not, and understood the uranium trade. His suitability for the job was confirmed by testimony of administration witnesses. His wife suggested him as a possibility AFTER it was determined they needed someone to undertake the mission in the first place, and the final decision wasn't and could not have been made by her.

Guess we've officially stretched the definition of discrediting.

Toensing certainly has.

 

[shereads]

Not my party I'm a card carrying Libertarian so don't blame me for Bush, either of them.

But I will blame you for Clinton and Ted Kenndy and the Hildabeast.

I don't vote in Massachusetts, and I'm on the fence about Hilary as a presidential candidate. But I'd be delighted to take credit for the 8 years when the Clintons were in charge of a safer, saner, more compassionate America. I didnt' fear the future. I was confident of keeping my civil libertties. I was proud of my country for helping end the genocide in Bosnia, with a coalition assembled by Clinton despite the right wing's assertion that he had no right to risk American lives in another country's civil war.

I'm proud to support public servants whose actions in office indicate that no matter what their flaws, they care about some things other than their own self interest. Ted Kennedy and both Clintons have opposed tax cuts that would have added substantially to their own wealth. They support causes on behalf of people who can't contribute to their campaign funds, don't vote in large numbers, and whose needs are often in conflict with the wishes of corporate political sponsors. Do they sometimes sell out? Absolutely. But selling out sometimes is infinitely preferable to being for sale all the time. Did one of them get drunk and cause a fatal accident and get away with it? Yes. Was GWB luckier when his own drunk-driving incident resulted in some squashed shrubbery instead of a dead body - and when his daddy managed to get the incident hushed up? Yes indeed. Did Clinton pardon more than his fair share of criminals? Yes. Were their crimes as nasty as the ones attributed to some of Bush I's pardonees? Hardly.

Whatever your problems are with the Clintons and Kennedy - and I don't doubt you can make a long list, everything from alleged murders to failing to volunteer for service in Vietnam -- no, wait. I forgot. We don't hear a lot about Clinton's draft dodging anymore since Dubya and Cheney and Rumsfeld made us realize that staying home to keep an eye on the womenfolk and get your MBA is another way of supporting the troops. So scratch combat service as a measure of someone's fitness to lead the country...Whatever else your problems with the Clintons and Kennedy, you can't possibly support an argument that they rival leading Republicans for sheer, brazen, self-serving corruption. Neither can you blame them for the needless deaths of 3,000 young Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, a civil war in a part of the world where any more instability could ignite a nuclear war, and rampant contempt for the United States among our allies as well as our enemies. (Ahem. Before you go there, congress voted on the Iraq war based on evidence edited by the White House, who purchased some of it from a convicted con artist with an agenda. Repeat as often as needed.)

So which politicians are you to blame for? I feel okay about mine.

 

[JamesSD]

And what does the fact that Libby was never elected have to do with anything?

It means that the persons who appointed and oversaw him are ultimately responsible, as opposed to the voting public (who can be held responsible for electing the Shrub in 2004... at least 51% or so)

Of course, fall-guys are everywhere. Taking credit when things go well and assigning blame when things go wrong is one of the major perks of power.

 

[Pure]

here's an explanation of the charges and their nuances

How Many Ways Can You Say "Lie"?

The difference between perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice.

By Daniel Engber

Posted Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 2:46 PM ET
[Slate Magazine]


On Tuesday, a federal jury convicted former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice. In an "Explainer" column printed when Libby was first indicted in 2005 and reproduced below, Daniel Engber went over the differences among these three crimes.

On Oct. 28, a special prosecutor indicted now-former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for deceiving federal investigators and a grand jury. Among the charges against him: two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice. What's the difference between these crimes?

In this particular case, very little. The perjury counts allege that Libby "knowingly made a false declaration" to the grand jury when asked about conversations he'd had with Tim Russert, Matthew Cooper, and other reporters. The false-statements counts say he "did knowingly and willfully" make "materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent" statements to FBI agents about conversations with Russert and Cooper. And the obstruction count alleges that Libby made "materially false and intentionally misleading statements" to the grand jury about conversations he'd had with Russert, Cooper, and Judith Miller.


How is perjury different from making false statements? To commit perjury, you have to be under oath, and you have to knowingly fib about something that's relevant to the case at hand. (Your statement must also be literally false—lies of omission don't count.) In contrast, you can break the false-statements law by lying about an issue that's "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government," even if you're not under oath.

The false-statements law is worded so broadly that it can apply to almost any interaction a private citizen has with the government; in practice, it's typically used against people who lie to federal investigators or who file false documents with government agencies.

It gets more complicated. In Libby's indictment, prosecutors used the term "perjury" in a colloquial sense. In fact, he is charged with breaking 18 U.S.C. § 1623—or, the "false declarations" law—rather than 18 U.S.C. § 1621, aka the perjury law. The two are very similar, but false declarations tend to be easier to prove. For one thing, perjury convictions must be based on evidence from at least two witnesses; false declarations can be proved without any witnesses.

Prosecutors can show that Libby made "false declarations" simply by showing that his statements to the grand jury were inconsistent. (As with perjury, false declarations must be knowingly made and about an important issue.)

What about obstruction of justice? You're guilty of obstruction if you do anything that hampers an ongoing case—destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, or lying under oath, for example. (Some courts have ruled that lying under oath is not sufficient for conviction on its own, though.) As with the other charges, prosecutors must show that an act of obstruction has significant bearing on the proceeding. According to the Supreme Court, it must have the "natural and probable effect" of interfering with the case.

When a witness lies under oath about an important topic, it almost always interferes with a prosecutor's case. That's why charges of perjury (or false declarations) often come with charges of obstruction. In the Libby indictment, the obstruction count refers to the same conduct as the perjury counts, with one or two extra examples thrown in—like the fact the he allegedly lied about Miller, too. The added material might represent an attempt on the prosecutor's part to show that Scooter worked out a broad scheme to deceive the grand jury.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Sara Sun Beale of Duke University and Stuart Green of Louisiana State University.

back to top

 

[Seattle Zack]

But I'd be delighted to take credit for the 8 years when the Clintons were in charge of a safer, saner, more compassionate America. I didnt' fear the future. I was confident of keeping my civil liberties.

I'm proud to support public servants whose actions in office indicate that no matter what their flaws, they care about some things other than their own self interest.

Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had. An unheralded reign of peace and prosperity. And, he balanced the budget, something no Republican reign has ever attempted.

He got his dick sucked by a fat chick, and so the neocons despise him. Who wouln't lie about that? Now, lying about the identy of a CIA agent is no big thing. Long as Uncle Dick told you it would turn out OK. Let's watch Scooter run.

 

[S-Des]

I know you didn't bring up the Clinton investigations, but do you have any idea how many tens of millions was spent on those? How many people involved? How fruitless they were in bringing any charges, let alone convictions? How Clinton's associates were jailed and/or threatened for refusing to shape their testimony to Starr's liking? And what does the fact that Libby was never elected have to do with anything?

The Clinton thing was a joke (despite SheReads attempt at mind-reading, I'm anything but a NeoCon). It showed that giving a single prosecutor unlimited resources and an unlimited scope of investigation was a bad idea. Clinton did lie, but it said a lot about the situation that he was being investigated for a 20 year-old land deal, but all they could get him on was lying about sex. My point about Libby being unelected is that you don't appoint an independant prosecutor to investigate the Vice-President's chief of staff, you do it to investigate Cheney (or at least Rove). Even the jury said they didn't think Libby was a bad guy, just that he wasn't being completely honest. One juror just said she hoped that Bush gives him a pardon and that they didn't feel he should get time. To spend millions just to get him for what they got is an incredible waste of time and money (IMHO).

Her covert status was not discussed at the trial because A. it wasn't germane to the charges of perjury and obstruction; B. it would have opened up the possibility of introducing a bunch of classified information that would have given the defense the opportunity to argue that they couldn't put up a defense because of national security concerns; C. the judge refused to admit arguments about her status, and D. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO TALK ABOUT THE STATUS OF A CIA AGENT! Toensing knows this, of course, yet uses the specious argument anyway. Some fucking authority.

And here's where I put my money where my mouth is. You're right! Fitzgerald (who I love, btw, due to his great work around here nailing corrupt public officials) came out and said clearly, with no hint of ambiguity that she WAS covert (I'm still not sure if there's legal maneuvering in that definition, but I'll give Patrick the benefit of the doubt). It's the first time I've heard anyone of authority say it, and I trust him. He's seen all the pertinent documents, so he'd know. I'm still bummed that he didn't go after anyone for anything more serious, but I got taken in by the spin machine (you were right that it was Toensing I had heard from). So although I still think this was a giant waste of time (especially when you have the jurors saying the only guy charged should go free), I was wrong about the disputed facts (at least until someone changes my mind again ).

 

[Huckleman2000]

...Fitzgerald (who I love, btw, due to his great work around here nailing corrupt public officials) came out and said clearly, with no hint of ambiguity that she WAS covert (I'm still not sure if there's legal maneuvering in that definition, but I'll give Patrick the benefit of the doubt). It's the first time I've heard anyone of authority say it, and I trust him. He's seen all the pertinent documents, so he'd know. I'm still bummed that he didn't go after anyone for anything more serious, but I got taken in by the spin machine (you were right that it was Toensing I had heard from). So although I still think this was a giant waste of time (especially when you have the jurors saying the only guy charged should go free), I was wrong about the disputed facts (at least until someone changes my mind again ).

Fitzgerald really does seem to be a stand-up guy. No steady leaking from the grand jury, no impromptu interviews as he's putting out his trash in the morning... I think he brought the case he could WIN, as opposed to the case he WOULD HAVE LIKED to have brought based on all the inferences in the testimony. In that sense, he's a model of prosecutorial restraint. [He's also REALLY TALL! I'd never seen him out from behind a podium until I saw a shot of him outside the courthouse.]

Still, I would have loved to see him with Cheney on the stand. I hope we get to see the transcripts of his questioning Bush and Cheney someday.

 

[Pure]

interesting, zack!

SZClinton was the best Republican president we ever had. An unheralded reign of peace and prosperity. And, he balanced the budget, something no Republican reign has ever attempted.

He got his dick sucked by a fat chick, and so the neocons despise him. Who wouln't lie about that? Now, lying about the identy of a CIA agent is no big thing. Long as Uncle Dick told you it would turn out OK. Let's watch Scooter run.

i too consider clinton to be a bit Republican, excepting for his being comfortable with Black people (and probably gays).

hey, let's not knock Monica's weight; i'm sure she was a fine sexual partner.

i disagree about the bj as a reason to despise Clinton. i notice Coulter too keeps bringing it up, like some right wingers here do.

i've been puzzled by the Clinton hatred, and the best i can come up with is that Clinton took the South, to which the GOP feels entitled, and which they can't win without. Carter too, was a Southerner.
Lately, Edwards is attacked by Coulter, as a fag. i think southern democrats are a real threat to the right, and the slime machines have to work overtime to neutralize them.

i like Webb and Wesley Clark a lot; just read an interview with WC about the neo-con plans, in 2001, to invade Iraq, independently of 9-11. AND then syria, lebanon, libya, somalia, and .... IRAN.

anyone see Webb's response to the 'state of the union' address?

 

[elsol]

Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had. An unheralded reign of peace and prosperity. And, he balanced the budget, something no Republican reign has ever attempted.

He got his dick sucked by a fat chick, and so the neocons despise him. Who wouln't lie about that? Now, lying about the identy of a CIA agent is no big thing. Long as Uncle Dick told you it would turn out OK. Let's watch Scooter run.

I wouldn't... have to.

President of the US and that's the best you can do?

FUCK NO!!!

There would be a Penthouse Pet of the Month Night if I were President.

"Hi... see that guy's Porsche... big fucking deal! I'm President of the United States, wanna fuck?"

 

[Huckleman2000]

Valerie Plame Wilson testified under oath before a Congressional committee this morning. She put to rest several claims made repeatedly by Republican apologists:


1. According to her own testimony, and in a statement for the record from the Committee Chair, Henry Waxman, which was approved by the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was, at the time of Novak's column 'outing' her, a covert CIA operative. In addition, she had served in her official capacity overseas during the past five years. I hope this puts to rest the ridiculous myth that there was no crime because she was not a covert agent.

2. Regarding how her husband was sent to Niger - a colleague received a call from "someone in the Vice President's office" asking for more information about the report of Iraq trying to get yellowcake from Niger. While discussing it, another colleague suggested Joe Wilson. She was told to ask her husband if he'd be willing to meet with the CIA during the following week to discuss the undertaking, and her boss requested that she send an email around to the group to give them a head's up about that. That is the email that has been waved around in all sorts of reporting. Additionally, the colleague who's testimony was inserted by 'three senators' into the Congressional Report wrote a memo saying that what they put in the report was a mischaracterization of his testimony. The Committee agreed to try to make the memo public.

I have no delusion that this testimony is going to convince anyone who has paid any attention to this and hasn't been convinced so far, but at least it's on the record and under oath and cleared by the CIA.

Victoria Toensing is set to testify later today. That should be pretty funny....

 

[shereads]

White House to interview new scapegoats as Miers fails initial screening.

In other news on the Guilty front, e-mails have apparently implicated Karl Rove in Archibald Cox-gate The Sequel. Here's an interesting quote:

"The president's top lawyers will tell Congress today whether Rove can testify and under what conditions."

Questions:

Who else thinks one of the conditions will be that Rove won't be testifying under oath.

Also, just in case I ever receive a subpoena to testify before Congress: I'm entitled to decline, right? Or do I just get to insist that Congress meet my conditions?

I'd demand immunity, like on Survivor but without having to eat insects. I'd want a suite at the Hays Adams, and a limousine. And a pair of kick-ass Jimmy Choo boots with 4-inch stilletos to intimidate my enemies on the committee. No sworn oath, either; but that goes without saying.