Amazing what turns up when you're not stuck in jail... __________________ Reporter finds earlier notes in CIA leak case WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York Times reporter Judith Miller discovered notes from an earlier conversation she had with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and turned them over the prosecutor investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity, legal sources said on Friday. Miller's notes about a June 2003 conversation with Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, could be important to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's case by establishing exactly when Libby and other administration officials first started talking to reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson. link
There are certainly a lot of hints, allegations and murmurs out there tonight, particularly on the bloggier part of the web, about what might be coming down the pike from Patrick Fitzgerald. My favorite is this snippet from Hardball -- caught and excerpted on John Aravosis' Americablog -- which has Howard Fineman describing an alleged pre-indictment (political) death struggle pitting Karl Rove against Andy Card. Gotta love that. Whether it's true or not, who knows? In any case, an article in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal contains this pleasant sounding sentence: "Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy." And then further down there's this: "Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson's claims." First of all, it did play a big role. That's where the push back came from. If this description is accurate, it must have many folks at the White House in cold sweats. If Karl Rove goes down in this investigation it'll be a disaster for the president, both in terms of the damage occasioned by such a high-level White House indictment and, frankly, because he needs the guy like most of us need legs. But this WHIG thing is a whole 'nother level of hurt. This group was the organizational team, the core group behind all the shameless crap that went down in the lead up to the Iraq war -- the lies about the cooked up Niger story, everything. If Fitzgerald has lassoed this operation into a criminal conspiracy, the veil of protective secrecy in which the whole operation is still shrouded will be pulled back. Depositions and sworn statements in on-going investigations have a way of doing that. Ask Bill Clinton. Every key person in the White House will be touched by it. And all sorts of ugly tales could spill out. -- Josh Marshall
From today's Wall Street Journal... Focus of CIA Leak Probe Appears to Widen Mr. Rove, who has already testified three times before the grand jury and was identified by a Time magazine reporter as a source for his story on Mr. Wilson, is expected to go back to the grand jury, potentially as early as today, to clarify earlier answers. Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson's claims. http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...z92Qlr0_XPP5IbwfiUKHI_20051111.html?mod=blogs
mc josh, could you please edit your posts, so we can tell which parts belong to mr. mark, and which are the work of dr. josh? also, i thought you agreed some time ago to defer mindless, triumphalist, speculation until an indictment was or was not handed down. lastly, this "news" is several days old.
"Now the night of the [indictment], you may feel a slight sting, that's pride ****in' wit ya. **** pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps. Fight through that ****."
So Basso is your past contention that there is nothing to this Plame investigation now non-operative? Just curious.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aSuj1d8CcYAk&refer=top_world_news In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame's career. If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed -- and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath -- while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.
Briefing: Reporters Want Endorsement of Rove, But McClellan Not Biting By E&P Staff Published: October 14, 2005 5:38 PM ET NEW YORK At the White House press briefing today, many of the questions concerned Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy, who testified today (for the fourth time) before the federal grand jury probing the Plame case. Early on in the session, at least two reporters asked Press Secretary Scott McClellan whether the president still had full confidence in Rove, even apart from the grand jury troubles. McClellan failed to answer flatly, referring the reporters instead to previous statements he had made on this matter. Still trying, another reporter returned to the subject later, setting up this exchange: *** Q Scott, I just have two quick follows to some questions that were asked earlier. One, are you trying -- are you saying that, CIA leak aside, you can't say that the President has full confidence in Karl Rove? MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe you didn't hear what I was saying earlier. I said, what I said previously still stands. Q What did you say previously? You say that all the time. MR. McCLELLAN: You can go back and look at it. I'll be glad to share the transcript of when that question came up last time. Q Either he does or he does not. So he does have full confidence? MR. McCLELLAN: We've already addressed that, Jim. Q Why can't you repeat it? Q But why can't -- if you've addressed it, why can't you repeat it for me? Clearly -- MR. McCLELLAN: Why do you have to keep asking a question that I've already answered when -- Q Because I don't know the answer. MR. McCLELLAN: No, because you're asking in the context of an ongoing investigation. And it's very easy to go and look at our transcripts and pull that information -- Q That's why I said -- that's why I said, "set the leak aside," just in general are you refusing to -- MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. And I said I stand by what I said previously. Q Okay, topic two, since you won't answer that question. MR. McCLELLAN: I did answer that question.
I felt sick when Clinton got drug into court while still sitting as President. It wasn't that Clinton did not deserve it, but that the office of the President should be above being drugged through this type of muck. I see no reason why in either Clinton's or what may be Bush's case that the law suit can not be postponed. The Republicans forced the issue and set the precedent, so fair is fair. How many of our past, recent Presidents have been dragged into court? Reagan and Bush 41 got pulled in by Iran Contra (where I am completely sure they lied to save their asses). Clinton got pulled in by Zipper Gate (where he lied, creatively redefining words as he went). And now Bush 43 is on the verge. Shouldn't we expect and get more responsible behavior from our Presidents?
Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for presidents or any other ELECTED, ACCOUNTABLE government officials being 'dragged' through the legal system. They MUST understand that they are not above the law, they already have way too many priviliges as is.
Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath -- while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time. __________________
"Shouldn't we expect and get more responsible behavior from our Presidents?' You know, I could really care less if Bill was having a affair, or several of them, while in the White House, as long as he did a good job as President, and it didn't interfere with his job any more than an afternoon quickie in the office with Hillary would. (please try to keep visual thoughts at a minimum, for the love of god! ) I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't care if Bush were having an affair with Karen Hughes, or a secretary, for the same reasons. If it were kept quiet. If the behavior was discreet. I care when they lie to the American public. It pissed me off when Bill did it. At least the issue wasn't war and peace, our economy and our currency, whether we were needlessly sending our military into a meat grinder, whether there was a plan for that war that was realistic, whether those best qualified to give advice were listened to or ignored, and tossed out on their butt if they disagreed too loudly. At least Bill's problems were about sex, honesty, and the trust of the American public. It was not about a war based on fabrications, exaggerations and lies, the fate of our economy, international alliances and relationships, the very future of our volunteer military, extremism, and incompetence. That is what we have been given with George W. Bush. I would rather have Bill Clinton, with all his faults, any day. Keep D&D Civil.
your post was about Bush's legacy. while you're recounting his (apparent) failings, you might also credit him his successes.
free elections, an iraqi constitution, a new government? i agree, it's still too early to judge out it will all turn out, but i can't see how you can begrudge Bush his very real accomplishments in iraq.
