The problem is the expiration of the independent counsel law a few years ago. Back when those were still around, the independent counsel would routinely leak information and make sure every little detail was made to look as big as possible. With the expiration of the law, we've been forced to rely on prosecutors like Fitzgerald who strictly look at the legal aspect of this. And consequently, we're hearing nothing because we don't have an independent counsel to blow everything up. Also Indpendent counsels tended to investigate everyone with a much smaller evidence standard so you couldve seen cheney or rove being looked into.
Repubs starting to push Bush to oust Rove ~ this scandal will be constant distraction for months to come. Looks like Bush has a major decision to make sooner than later... ______ "You should always be looking for ... new blood, new energy, qualified staff, new people in administration. I'm not talking about wholesale changes, but you've got to reach out and bring in more advice and counsel," Sen. Trent Lott link
The crimes Libby is charged with are serious, and deserve to be treated as such, but the Libby indictment does not allege that Victoria Flame was a covert agent. Neither is Libby, nor Rove, is charged with conspiracy. Fitzgerald has apparently found no evidence that anyone was guilty of anything in the "outing" of Flame. this was an investigation about nothing. We should call it the Seinfeld kerfluffle.
I watched Meet the Press yesterday and it was a very interesting show. They had the Chiefs of Staff from the Reagan, Carter and Clinton Administrations. The consensus was as follows: All three of the two term Presidents since the 1960s have faced some kind of scandal during their second term. Nixon faced Watergate Reagan faced Iran-Contra Clinton faced the Lewinsky affair Two of them, Reagan and Clinton, went before the American people, confessed their wrongdoing, and made major personnel changes in their Administration. Both Reagan and Clinton remained popular until the end of their 2nd terms. One of them, Nixon, hunkered down in the White House, made no changes to personnel in his Administration (until the courts forced him to), and never confessed to the people that he had made a mistake. As we know, Nixon was impeached and eventually resigned. The moral of the story is....the American people are a very forgiving people, as long as you are straight with them.
"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent."-- Patrick Fitzgerald
"Yet"......the 62% of Americans who disapprove of George W. Bush's performance as President of the United States.
Very interesting, RMT. I hadn't really thought about it quite that way, but it's true. Then you have LBJ, who was practically a 2 term President (it seemed like he was President forever... anyone remember?), who chose not to run for reelection because of a war. That was an act of sacrifice for Johnson, a man who had no peers when it came to love of the political game. He did it in an attempt to end a war that was eating him up inside. Don't look for Bush to do anything remotely like Reagan, Clinton, or LBJ. He is an empty suit. That is the main difference between him and Nixon, the President he most closely resembles. At least Nixon was very intelligent. Nuts, in his own way, but damned smart. George W. Bush is so far over his head that he could swim upwards for days and not break the surface. Keep D&D Civil.
Basso we do know that she was a cover agent, and we know that as a result of that we lost intel gathering abilities in the middle east with a strong foothold in Saudi Arabia. We know that. You can call it nothing, but if you do please don't pretend to be all supportive of the war on terror, or lecture others about supposedly not being supportive of our troops. We know that the whole front company of Brewster Jennings and all of their contacts were blown. Fitzgerald's investigation is ongoing, and your premature ramblings about what he believes belies Fitzgerald's own statements about the seriousness of what happened.
Does anyone have the comment made by the President or VP wrt Libby after his indictment and resignation? I am also looking for a W quote circa 2001 where he says his admin will not only do the legal thing but the *right thing*. White House spokesman Scott McClellan reportedly said the following today : The president directed everybody in the White House to cooperate fully with the special counsel…The White House has been cooperating fully with the special counsel, and we will continue to do so. Cooperation which includes Obstruction Of Justice by Libby. McClellan just wanted us to know that we can expect more the same old sh*t from the WH. Denial is not a really long river that runs through Egypt.
Reliving an old post on this thread ... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=1930395&postcount=399 The Jonathan Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA. Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA, and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.) Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. Attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak. By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, Court One of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions. Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers. Rove and Libby both leaked the Plame to the press. It is laughable to assume that W would treat Rove and Libby like Randel. It would be the right thing to do, but ...
It's not just me, but the Boston Globe as well Apparent CIA Front Didn't Offer Much Cover ==== "Former intelligence officials confirmed Plame's cover was an invention and that she used other false identities and affiliations when working overseas. "All it was was a telephone and a post office box," said one former intelligence official who asked not to be identified. "When she was abroad she had a more viable cover." That's a good thing, considering how little work seems to have gone in to establishing the company's presence in Boston, intelligence observers said. While the renovated building houses legal and investment firms, current and former building managers said they've never heard of Brewster Jennings. Nor did the firm file the state and local records expected of most businesses. Both factors would have aroused the suspicions of anyone who tried to check up on Brewster Jennings, said David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, a liberal Washington think tank. At the least, a dummy company ought to create the appearance of activity, with an office and a valid mailing address, he said. "A cover that falls apart on first inspection isn't very good. What you want is a cover that actually holds up . . . and this one certainly doesn't." ==== or the WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801988.html "There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences -- the risk of anyone's life -- resulted from her outing." ====== or Bob Woodward http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was__1.html "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment." ============== Or Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usspy1030,0,2467645.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix "The CIA will not conduct a formal damage assessment until legal proceedings are complete." ==== Is that SOP when security is blown, lives endangered, the CIA says "no harm, no foul?
These stories don't even match up. As for the CIA, do you think they are going to come out and say agents are in danger? If you have agents or assets at risk, the worst thing you can do is tell that to the world and put counterintelligence agencies on full alert. The best thing to do is say there was no damage, so anyone abroad thinking about doing a little investigation might be warded off. It may not help much, but it far less damaging than saying "we have tons of assets at risk now!" Come on, this is pretty basic security stuff. The same thing happens in all security stuff. If you have a computer network that is insecure and can't be taken offline, you tell the world its secure while you fix the holes. You don't announce that its vulnerable so every idiot starts trying to break in.
Over two years of investigation and NO CHARGES filed regarding the CIA leak case... I think that speaks enough.
Based on the indictments, it seems to speak to the fact that Libby thwarted the investigation and tried to prevent (possibly successfully) Fitzgerald from learning the truth.
Let me see, who was charged with the same exact thing as Libby? Oh, I don't know... maybe Bill Clinton? If all they have after two years is lying under oath then they are grasping for straws.
Basso did you read just far enough to select some quotes? The company was even listed on the Dun & Bradstreet database of companies. http://www.answers.com/topic/brewster-jennings-associates Look at what you are saying. At one point you are saying that the CIA hasn't done assessment yet and won't until after legal proceedings. Then apparently you are also saying that they did assess it and nobody's life was in danger. Your quotes don't even say the same thing. This is also from the first site you posted, but you seemed to have left this little tidbit out. From the same article it appears that the corporation has been doing its undercover work since 1994 Again you left this part out. As far as it not being super visible high profile company in the U.S. that doesn't seem to be a bad thing for a company that wants to have little known about it, so that agents can do the real work in Saudi Arabia. And this is from the Washington Post article which you must not have read very much of either. So while you may consider it "nothing" apparently our officials who serve the nation in the CIA believe that it was more than that. This also says that it is routine not to do a complete assessment of damages until after all the legal proceedings. So what was your point in posting quotes that mention that the assessments haven't been done yet? Look what else a CIA official says about what was done. It is considerably more than "nothing" Looking at your Newsday article again it seems to say that it can't be known that no damage was done, but says that even if that didn't happen that it hampers our fight on terrorism. Why don't you read one of the whole stories you posted and read it all in context. Half the stuff you used in your quotes is standard position.
