New York Times to annouce indictments in Plame case.

[Sonart]

As I sit here typing, I'm listening to Tucker Carlson on his TV show, 'The Situation'. He's saying that the New York Times will come out with a story tomorrow that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald will be issuing indictments against members of the White House staff, charges including perjury, obstruction, etc., unrelated to the original Plame charges.

Stay tuned!

.

[kilkee]

This is one of the things I will not believe until I see it happen.

[RickSp]

Somehow I am not sure that Tucker Calrson should be considered a reliable source. This morning's Times is now saying that Fitzgerald will not "make a decision" about charges till next week. I find that a bit hard to believe. It sounds like the decision has already been made. Newweek's Howard Fineman asks:

Will Fitzgerald indict anyone? Well-placed insiders, including two I’ve talked to in the last two days, think that he will.

His column When White House spin spins out of control is interesting.

[Dirty Name]

In the back of my mind, I'm wondering if Rove himself hasn't engineered another brilliant and classic media shenanigan by making them all overhype this story to the point that whatever happens, it's not going to be nearly as juicy as the media has portrayed.

I predict Libby gets indicted on "mishandling classified information," or perhaps "obstruction of justice." That's all. No one else, and no other charges. Still a stinking scandal that will have badly marred Bush in the eyes of his supporters (myself included), but hardly the stuff of lore, such as Cheney resigning to be replaced by Condi Rice, to name just one wild rumor.

Mark my words. George W. Bush will NEVER, EVER appoint anyone to be his VP who represents a presidential threat to Jeb.

[Sonart]

Hey, all I'm doing is passing on what Carlson, celebrity conservative MSNBC political talk show host said on air last night. :)

[Sonart]

Ooops double post

[gr8fuldaniel]

Here ya go.........

Fitzgerald Launches Web Site By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Friday, October 21, 2005; 1:00 PM Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has just launched his own brand-new Web site. Could it be that he's getting ready to release some new legal documents? Like, maybe, some indictments? It's certainly not the action of an office about to fold up its tents and go home.......... more

[xyzer]

I have a hard time with this whole event! We are told that one Valerie Plame(a covert CIA operative) has had her identity revealed. If intentional his may be a violation of the Intelligence Security Laws and so a special prosecutor has been asked to find out what happened?

Additional reports from the press and her husband revealed that Plame was not at the time(and had not been for some years) a covert operative. She is now working for the CIA in Washington DC.
One would think that would end an investigation into something that wouldn't fit the charge.

Oh no! 22 months later, after the expenditure of millions of dollars(no one has divulged the cost), we are now hearing that there may be charges(obstruction of justice, perjury), not related to the original accusation, but which will relate to answers given by witnesses during the interrogation phase of the investigation?
If so we will have generated(for political leverage) a trap. Make unfounded charges that are moot to start with and can't be proved, and then during the investigation attempt to catch the witnesses in lies or obstructive schemes and charge them so that a trial can begin.

The utter futility and waste of such nonsense appalls me! I cant remember the exact words of even the subject of something my wife and I discussed a week ago and so would symapthize with someone being questioned for specificsabout one or two conversations or incidents that occurred months ago.

I'm shocked that in the analysis of the testimony how ridiculous it is to taket one persons version of such an indeterminate over someone elses? crazy stuff. We are forcing people to testify under oath and then comparing their testimony to others who are testifying under oath? This is not justice! It might better be termed a political lynching!

Ah what expensive and destructive actions some people can cause. This guy Wilson who started it all should be the one on trial! He probably made enough money out of his book to pay a stff fine.

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer This guy Wilson who started it all should be the one on trial! He probably made enough money out of his book to pay a stff fine.

I love it - blame the victim. Anyone who doesn't salute and march in line should be crushed. It is not about Wilson or Plame. It is about a conspiracy to fool the American people into supporting a needless war.

Let me reiterate: This case is not about Joseph Wilson. He is, in Alfred Hitchcock's parlance, a MacGuffin, which, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, is "a particular event, object, factor, etc., initially presented as being of great significance to the story, but often having little actual importance for the plot as it develops." Mr. Wilson, his mission to Niger to check out Saddam's supposed attempts to secure uranium that might be used in nuclear weapons and even his wife's outing have as much to do with the real story here as Janet Leigh's theft of office cash has to do with the mayhem that ensues at the Bates Motel in Psycho. This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That is why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.

Frank Rich on the Real Meaning of Rove/Plame/

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: xyzer If intentional his may be a violation of the Intelligence Security Laws and so a special prosecutor has been asked to find out what happened?

Its intentional or they would have apologized. The cover-up will be the death of them, remember Nixon? But its even bigger than that, the outing was done in revenge for exposing the primary but fraudulent reason for declaring war in Iraq. Which, both are acts of treason, throw in conspiracy to defraud in the SOTUA.

Quote by: xyzer that Plame was not at the time(and had not been for some years) a covert operative.

Then why is the CIA treating this as a crime? Who denied she was covert?

Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2089062/ <snip> Nonofficial cover. NOCs (the word rhymes with "rocks") are the most covert CIA operatives. They typically work abroad without diplomatic protection (often they pretend to work for some commercial enterprise). If these spies are caught, there's no guarantee that the United States would admit their true identities. When using official cover could put a spy's life and work at risk, NOC is the only alternative. Why is it such a big deal that someone outed Valerie Plame? For starters, it's a felony. And Plame was also reportedly a NOC with years of experience investigating weapons of mass destruction. If this is true, her discovery could compromise intelligence operations she was involved with around the world, which would explain why she maintained her nonofficial cover even when she was back in the United States. "Hard target" countries like China and North Korea often keep records of every known meeting between Americans and their scientists and officials. Almost certainly, those lists would have been frantically reviewed when Plame's identity was revealed, and any sources she recruited could have been exposed.

Quote by: xyzer Oh no! 22 months later, after the expenditure of millions of dollars

How many $ TRILLIONS $ have they stolen since then? And it was sooo easy, remember the money mantra !!"911 Terra Terra Terra 911"!!

Quote by: xyzer we are now hearing that there may be charges(obstruction of justice, perjury), not related to the original accusation, but which will relate to answers given by witnesses during the interrogation phase of the investigation?

Why would you have a problem with that? I would also like to see them charged with individual murders (Americans and any other nationalities) in Iraq until a viable "Noble Cause" can be presented.
Let em swing from the White House eaves , til they rot.

Quote by: xyzer Make unfounded charges that are moot to start with and can't be proved

UnFounded? You mean it never happened? Like Orwells 1984?
Moot to start with? They lied us into a horrible ungrounded war, and when fraudulent documents were paraded out as a call for war, are exposed as frauds, these slimebags go after the wife of the man who exposed the scam. Moot? This endangers National Security and is TREASON!

[xyzer]

love it - blame the victim. Anyone who doesn't salute and march in line should be crushed. It is not about Wilson or Plame. It is about a conspiracy to fool the American people into supporting a needless war.

So now we assign a perpetrator victim status. Tell me didn't Wilson start the verbal, self serving barrage criticising the Bush Admin for going to war based on weak evidence? His miniscule portion of the rationale for war was inflated by Wilson himself.It was only one controversial portion of the picture. The Administration relied on Intelligence from other countries and eventually made light of the results of his cursory visit to Niger. As I recall there was an accusation that a letter in question was a forgery. No matter, Wilson wasn't a victim until he made himself one and profited from it. He is still at it! Criticising the Bush Administration and picking up speaking fees from believers like you!

He was the one who was allegeding he was wronged because he wasn't believed. To believe yellow cake in Niger was the crucial factor in any decision is to be naive or extremely subjective! One can have objections to the attack on Iraq(as I did) but not because Wilson disproved an allegation that Iraq sought to buy yellow cake!(a silly, minor, unaccomplished issue) Tell me just how important is that issue?
The only reason we dwell upon it is because of profiteers like Wilson. I agree with Rich

This case is about Iraq, not Niger

But outside of that I disagree with that Frank Rich.. He is a minion of one of the most destructive press entities we have in this country. One that spawns a hive of nation haters, that twists and intertwines news and opinion to distort truth and push its agenda.
You and the rest of the antiwar types can believe what comes out of that journalistic scourge if you like just dont include me in you cabal!

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: xyzer Tell me didn't Wilson start the verbal, self serving barrage criticising the Bush Admin for going to war based on weak evidence?

No, actually it was FORGED evidence. Big difference. Wilson didnt make himself a victim. the administration made his wife a target. As well as anyone she had covert dealings with.

Quote by: xyzer To believe yellow cake in Niger was the crucial factor in any decision is to be naive or extremely subjective!

If there were no weapons program, there is no justification for pre-emptive strike.

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer The only reason we dwell upon it is because of profiteers like Wilson. I agree with Rich. But outside of that I disagree with that Frank Rich.. He is a minion of one of the most destructive press entities we have in this country. One that spawns a hive of nation haters, that twists and intertwines news and opinion to distort truth and push its agenda. You and the rest of the antiwar types can believe what comes out of that journalistic scourge if you like just dont include me in you cabal!

You are really getting funny. Wilson, a profiteer? He wrote a book about his wife, a CIA agent, for Jaysus sake, who was outed by the Bush administration in an act of political revenge. If Rove and Scooter hadn't outed her, he could never have written the damn book. So I guess they are to blame for Wilson's "profiteering" as you so weirdly call it. Again, you expect everyone to shut up and follow orders. Well, Joe Wilson was better than that, thank goodness.

And this is the funniest. You are calling the New York Times names? Here I almost agree with you. Judith Miller was effectively a member of the White House Iraq Group and was pumping phony intel straight from Cheney's lie machine and getting it published as front page news! So no, I never believed the Bush lies, even through they were published by the New York Times.

[xyzer]

who was outed by the Bush administration in an act of political revenge

Outed from what? Being an agent. Hey! My father worked for the CIA ..It was no secret. Plame workes for the CIA too. It's no secret. If you recall the original accusation was that a covert CIA agent was outed..thats what started the whole investigation. It was soon rendered moot because she wasn't a covert operative and there was nothing to charge anyone with. According to the web sitehttp://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html another request was made by Fitzgerald some months later to expand the investigation(make it plenary).
This was my original gripe! When you start out with a non crime and then expand the investigation to see if you can catch any witness in obstruction or perjury by questioning them repeatedly under oath. Just looking for an opening to prosecute. It's ridiculous, expensive and obviously political to do such a thing.
Its a perversion of the justice system!

[Sonart]

Quote by: xyzer It was soon rendered moot because she wasn't a covert operative and there was nothing to charge anyone with.

You ever get tired of being dead wrong, xyzer? Where did you get that idea?

--"While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. "Brewster Jennings" was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street,

One former CIA official, Larry C. Johnson, identified Plame as a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." [3]

It has been speculated that Plame likely would have worked in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) James Pavitt."--

And even if she wasn't a covert operative at the time of Wilson's trip, and even if Rove didn't identify her by name, it would be a simple matter of any foreign intelligence service to indentify Mrs. former Ambassador Joseph P. Wilson, backtrack her career, and thus put at risk anyone she'd ever worked with or dealt with.

Quote by: xyzer This was my original gripe! When you start out with a non crime and then expand the investigation to see if you can catch any witness in obstruction or perjury by questioning them repeatedly under oath.

It's what they do with folks like organized criminals who they know are guilty but who are more easily prosecuted for perjury and obstruction than for the more serious crimes. You know...perjury and obstruction? The things you were going on about with such self-righteous moral outrage regarding Bill Clinton?

Quote by: xyzer It's ridiculous, expensive and obviously political to do such a thing. Its a perversion of the justice system!

Really!!?? Welcome to eight years in the life of Bill Clinton. Except this time, it's about an actual matter of national importance and security... lying about the outing of a CIA operative -- whether it was intentional or not -- thus endangering everyone she'd ever worked with, all to politically punish someone for reporting the truth about false information this administration was seeking to spread to America and the world to justify a bad war that more than half of all Americans now believe was a mistake.

Your sense of what's a legitimate gripe is really screwed up, xyzer. Wilson was the good guy.

.

[Sonart]

Oh, and by the way, apparently from today's New York Times...

--"In a dramatic e-mail, Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote Times' employees he wished he had more carefully interviewed Miller and had not "missed what should have been significant alarm bells" that she had been the recipient of leaked information about the CIA officer at the heart of the case.

In a sign the prosecutor may be preparing indictments, Fitzgerald's office erected a Web site Friday containing the record of the broad investigative mandate handed to him by the Justice Department at the outset of his investigation. Unlike some of his predecessors who operated under a law that has since expired, Fitzgerald is not required to write a final report, so he would not need a Web site for that purpose.

Two lawyers familiar with Fitzgerald's investigation said Fitzgerald learned from White House records that Miller had met as early as June 23, 2003, with Libby and discussed the CIA operative.

In her first grand jury appearance Sept. 30 after being freed from prison for refusing to testify, Miller did not mention the meeting and retrieved her notes about it when prosecutors produced her visitor logs showing she had met with Libby in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House."--

.

[gr8fuldaniel]

ITS CHENEY ! !

[xyzer]

Read this article and see if you still agree Wilson is a victim and didn't profit from his "15 minutes of fame".
Link

Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

"misspoken" a new word for lies.

This guy is an unreliable profiteer! Posing for pics for money? charging the media for public appearances which attempted to make his molehill assertions a mountain! Nomnsense! You guys are being duped by the leftist media.

I haven't yet seen anything official showing Valerie Plame was an undercover(covert) operative in 2003. Nothing but false claims. Even her lying husband says she was not! ergo, disclosing her identity as working for the CIA does not violate the Intelligence Identities Act as originally was claimed by jerks on the left!

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer This guy is an unreliable profiteer! Posing for pics for money? charging the media for public appearances which attempted to make his molehill assertions a mountain! Nomnsense! You guys are being duped by the leftist media. I haven't yet seen anything official showing Valerie Plame was an undercover(covert) operative in 2003. Nothing but false claims. Even her lying husband says she was not! ergo, disclosing her identity as working for the CIA does not violate the Intelligence Identities Act as originally was claimed by jerks on the left!

What nonsense. Pure and simple nonsense. And I could care less whether you have seen anything "official" about Valerie Plame. Might it occur to you that it is unlikely that a Special Prosecuter would be assigned to investigate if she wasn't? Duh. Or are you calling Patrick Fitzgerald a "jerk on the left." And sure, Wilson's wife is outed and he is a profiteer because he is paid to speak. And Cheny, Rove and Libby are heros for outing CIA agents? And up is down and wet streets cause rain.

[Sonart]

Quote by: zyzer Read this article and see if you still agree Wilson is a victim and didn't profit from his "15 minutes of fame". from the article --"Also beyond dispute is the fact that the little-known diplomat took maximum advantage of his 15 minutes of fame. Wilson has been a fixture on the network and cable news circuit for two years -- from "Meet the Press" to "Imus in the Morning" to "The Daily Show." He traveled west and lunched with the likes of Norman Lear and Warren Beatty. He published a book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity." He persuaded his wife, Valerie Plame, to appear with him in a January 2004 Vanity Fair photo spread, in which the two appeared in his Jaguar convertible."--

Yeah? So what? Did or did not all this come about because Wilson was sent to Niger to find out about uranium, reported his findings, and then whistleblew in the press that the Bush administration had declared to the world the exact opposite of what Wilson had reported? And did or did not the administration immediately, through Bob Novak, seek to discredit him, and his wife.

So what if the controversy put him front and center on the talk show circuit and so what if he enjoyed it. What, you think that was his plan all along?

Quote by: xyzer This guy is an unreliable profiteer! Posing for pics for money? charging the media for public appearances which attempted to make his molehill assertions a mountain! Nomnsense! You guys are being duped by the leftist media.

Again, so what? We know the administration misrepresented by 180 degrees what Wilson reported from Niger, and we know the administration tried to discredit him for reporting that misrepresentation. Everything else is sour grapes and so what.

Quote by: xyzer I haven't yet seen anything official showing Valerie Plame was an undercover(covert) operative in 2003. Nothing but false claims. Even her lying husband says she was not! ergo, disclosing her identity as working for the CIA does not violate the Intelligence Identities Act as originally was claimed by jerks on the left!

And I already explained to you that that is irrelevent. All a foreign intelligence service need know is that Plame once WAS a covert agent. Then, all they need to do is backtrack on whoever Plame talked to, worked with or dealt with over the years and they can start reeling in her undercover contacts.

.