my view of Clinton at the time was that the suit should not have been allowed to go forward while he was in office. however, once it did, he was under an obligation to testify truthfully. Certainly the (potential) issues here would be far graver. however, the criminal courts are the correct venue. if there is insuffiient evidence to indict, much less convict, civil suits can wait until he's out of office.
What a shock!! I pretty much agree with Basso. Now before my reputation gets ruined, remeber that just because we agree on this one issue, does not mean we agree on other issues.
I would want to know how Chalabi was given the security clearance to get that kind of classified information. Then I would once again lambast the president for taking this guy's word without getting any confirmation from independent sources before starting a war.
And why would Judy have security clearance? [edit] Although I will say that he might not be complacent it all of this. He seems to have hand a hand in starting the Niger Flamekerfluffal.
she was embedded w/ the WMD hunt team in iraq. read the times column- she definitely had security clearance. it's not clear if it was still in effect when she met w/ libby, or if libby was aware of her status.
Yes. I know and I did. Again it begs the question. Why did SHE have security clearance? And from what I understand it was only tactical clearance. Something every journalist imbedded had. It was not deep clearance. Why was she privy to this info? IMHO she was a shill for the war. Selling it for the Bushbots. That's what she is protecting... That is why she spent time in jail. And this is what is going to come out of all of this. That is why her “article” on Sunday wasn’t worth the $ 3.50.
Another mc josh post... A question about the story beneath the story, the origins of the Niger forgeries and who covered up the trail. The FBI was tasked with investigating the origins of the forgeries, who forged them and why. That was in March, 2003, soon after the IAEA publicly revealed the documents as forgeries. But no real investigation ever took place. When reports of FBI footdragging became public a year ago, the Bureau begged off with feeble excuses about not having received permission from the Italian government to interview the key player in the mystery. A case like that doesn't go uninvestigated by itself. Why did it? Who slowed it down? And which senators were getting briefed on the progress of the investigation over the course of 2003 and 2004? -- Josh Marshall So basso. Is forging documents or knowing who forged documents an impeachable offence?
Latest news, appears Fitzgerald won't have a final report on the investigation, leading many to speculate that indictments WILL be brought against someone in the administration... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday. The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment. A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report. By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm. With the term of the grand jury expiring Oct. 28, lawyers in the case said they assumed Mr. Fitzgerald was in the final stages of his inquiry. The focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry has remained fixed on two senior White House aides, Karl Rove, who is President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Both had conversations with reporters about a C.I.A. officer whose name was later publicly disclosed. It is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has learned who first identified the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003. Some of the lawyers in the case say Mr. Fitzgerald seems to be wrestling with decisions about how to proceed, leaning toward indictments but continuing to weigh thousands of pages of documents and testimony he has compiled during the nearly two-year inquiry. In recent days, Mr. Fitzgerald has repeatedly told lawyers in the case that he has not made up his mind about criminal charges. Mr. Fitzgerald has been investigating whether administration officials deliberately disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity - she is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - in response to criticism by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs before the invasion. Some lawyers in the case had expressed hope that a final report would provide Mr. Fitzgerald with a vehicle to disclose his investigative findings even if he absolved everyone of wrongdoing. Democrats in Congress had also expressed a desire for such a report, apparently hoping it would offer fresh details about the administration's actions. Any decision will be announced in Washington and not in Chicago, where Mr. Fitzgerald is the United States attorney, Justice Department officials said. In his daily news briefing, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday that a successful completion to the inquiry would be one in which Mr. Fitzgerald would "determine the facts and then outline those facts for the American people." Asked if that meant the White House would favor a public report if there were no indictments, Mr. McClellan said that the decision was Mr. Fitzgerald's, but that "we would all like to know what the facts are." Such a report could not only show where evidence failed to result in criminal charges, but also make recommendations for changes in law, disciplinary actions or criticize the conduct of public officials whose actions did not rise to the level of criminal behavior. Given the political ramifications attached to Mr. Fitzgerald's decisions, officials at the White House have begun discussing what would happen if Mr. Rove was indicted. Among the names being discussed to take some of Mr. Rove's responsibilities should he have to step aside, an outside adviser to the White House said, are Dan Bartlett, currently Mr. Bush's counselor; Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee; and Robert M. Kimmitt, the deputy Treasury secretary. Under Justice Department regulations, it is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has the authority to issue a final report, even if he wanted to, although he has operated under a broad delegation of authority, issued in a pair of letters by James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general. Those directives gave Mr. Fitzgerald virtually the same power as the attorney general to conduct criminal inquiries. But even the attorney general is restricted in what information he can release publicly or present to Congress when it has been obtained, as Mr. Fitzgerald has gathered it, through extensive use of a grand jury, whose proceedings are secret. Even so, some lawyers have argued that Mr. Fitzgerald could issue such a report and have said there is general authority to report his findings if they are requested by Congress. Without a report, it seems likely that questions about the case may remain unanswered and that a complete account of the administration's activities may never be known, including the details of testimony by the scores of administration officials who were interviewed in the inquiry. The likelihood that crucial details might be kept secret would be increased if Mr. Fitzgerald brought charges that were narrowly focused on perjury, false statement or obstruction of justice counts involving misstatements by officials in their testimony. But he has also examined broader potential violations, among them whether there was an illegal effort, directed by senior officials, to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity. Officials who testified or were questioned by investigators also included John Hannah, Mr. Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser.
I wonder if we are witnessing a classic Clinton move here ~ push out a rumor and over hype it (Cheney resigns) only to have a much more minor event occur (low level staffer leaks info - yawn) making everyone look dumb. I'm sure we all remember Clinton's video deposition where the rumor spread that he 'freaked out' during taping -- the media (and the Repubs) went nuts with this insider info and everyone expected a train wreck. Then the tape came out and Big C was calmed and composed. Hmmm...
She had a level of security clearance, but I haven't seen anything that said that she had the level of security needed to uncover someone with NOC status. But is interesting that she had security clearance and couldn't even tell her editors some of the stuff she was finding out from the govt. That alone raised some questions about her independence in the stories she was writing.
From CNN: While Bush vowed as recently as July to fire anyone on his staff found to have committed a crime in the CIA-leak matter, he has since completely clammed up. "I've made it very clear to the press that I'm not going to discuss the investigation," Bush said Monday when asked by a reporter whether he would remove an aide under indictment. "There's a serious investigation. I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the investigation." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/18/leakprobe.ap/index.html Man, that is one freaky photo. Well, at least he knows there is an investigation... he used the word 3 times in 3 consecutive sentences. Bizarre. Keep D&D Civil.
