Plame Affair: 1-5 indictments coming Wednesday

[hgc]

This from The Washington Note.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html

Speculate now! How many indictments? Who?

[Ed]

Funny think is that the two loony fringes will respond true to form.

The republicans will dust off all of the Clinton apologetics and change the names. The Democrats will brush off the Republican holier than thou crap from the same episode. They think no one will notice which is why 60 some odd percent of americans think they all suck.

The funny thing is that the idiots that say GW=hitler yadda yadda will sidestep the issue of how this evil totalitarian state within a state managed to allow any indictments in the first place.

Goat fornicators, all of them.

[Manny]

I'm just enjoying the leaks about a grand jury investigating leaks.

[Manny]

Oh, to add: By all appearances, Mr. Fitzgerald and his team seem to have done an admirable job of not leaking themselves. But every lawyer, neighbor, potential target or janitor who had occasion to talk to the grand jury seems to have leaked stuff.

[Vorticity]

My prediction:
One or two small-fry "aides" that no one has heard of get indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice, or other dog-sucking offences. No Rove, Libby, Cheney, etc.

"...and whenever I meet with a deck a cards I lays... my money... down." -R.P. McMurphy

[Upchurch]

My prediction:
One or two small-fry "aides" that no one has heard of get indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice, or other dog-sucking offences.
I was going to say the same thing, except I was going to be more specific and say that the only one who will get anything will be Scooter Libby.

Your doing a heck of a job, Scooter.


My other prediction is that the above phrase will move into popular usage meaning "the kiss of death to a sacrificial lamb" (too many mixed metaphores there?)

[shemp]

Sorry but you don't win the million dollars. LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/26/politics/main981236.shtml)

(CBS/AP) With Washington abuzz over possible indictments against senior White House aides in the CIA leak investigation, CBS News has been told no announcement of any charges is expected on Wednesday.

[Upchurch]

Sorry but you don't win the million dollars. LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/26/politics/main981236.shtml)
Yet. And like all good predictions, my second one had no expiration date, so it could always still come true... ;)

[Major Billy]

According to John Dean (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051021.html), who knows a thing or two about indictments:

I cannot imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington Office and returns to Chicago.

In short, I think the frenzy is about to end -- and it will not go any further.

[shemp]

Yet. And like all good predictions, my second one had no expiration date, so it could always still come true... ;)

I was referring to hgc's original post. No indictments will be handed down today.

[Upchurch]

I was referring to hgc's original post. No indictments will be handed down today.
Oops. The future I can see with obvious clarity. The past, not so much.

[epepke]

It's Wednesday, and no indictments so far. However, the grand jury has until Friday unless an extension is requested.

[hgc]

It's Wednesday, and no indictments so far. However, the grand jury has until Friday unless an extension is requested.Check back tomorrow. I'm sure Fitzmas is just around the corner...

[Luke T.]

No actual law was broken by saying that Valeria Plame was a covert CIA operative. She was outside the five year window that the law covers.

The only thing someone could be indicted for would be for lying when asked if they said she was a CIA operative. Or they could be charged with obstructing justice for denying they said she was a CIA operative.

[Mark]

No actual law was broken by saying that Valeria Plame was a covert CIA operative. She was outside the five year window that the law covers.

The only thing someone could be indicted for would be for lying when asked if they said she was a CIA operative. Or they could be charged with obstructing justice for denying they said she was a CIA operative.

Your first point is still in dispute, according to the newspapers.

Your second, though, I agree is more likely to be the basis for any charges. As with Nixon and Martha Stewart, the cover up is what made things worse.

In any case, the cowards in the Bush Administration will, undoubtedly, throw the "underlings" to the wolves while cowering under their desks. That is their standard tactic.

[curi0us]

No actual law was broken by saying that Valeria Plame was a covert CIA operative. She was outside the five year window that the law covers. Where are you getting this info from?

1) It's been reported that she was covert overseas within 5 years but more importantly it doesn't make much sense for the Bush team to allow a criminal investigation of themselves (Ashcroft only recused himself after it had been going for months) of something in which the only crime would have been lying during the investigation. Seriously, does that make sense to you?

2) Do you think someone that had classified clearance that suddenly started listing the names of every single CIA agent that hadn't been working overseas in the last 5 years would not be breaking any laws? Seriously, does that make sense to you? ( There are other laws that apply here and under Reagan and the current Bush people have been prosecuted for less signifcant infractions.)

[Luke T.]

2) Do you think someone that had classified clearance that suddenly started listing the names of every single CIA agent that hadn't been working overseas in the last 5 years would not be breaking any laws? Seriously, does that make sense to you? ( There are other laws that apply here and under Reagan and the current Bush people have been prosecuted for less signifcant infractions.)

Does it make sense? No. But is there actually any law against it? Show me.

If a person signs a security agreement and then violates that agreement, they can be punished. Otherwise, there is no law against it.

[zakur]

Not today, either. From the AP (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051027/D8DGDRF8F.html): A spokesman for the prosecutor said there would be no public announcements Thursday.

[jj]

Dial tone - I hear nothing but a buzzzzz

Face it, the entire government is working hard to hide anything that would support an indictment. I'm surprised that homeland security hasn't shut down the prosecutor.

[corplinx]

Dial tone - I hear nothing but a buzzzzz

Face it, the entire government is working hard to hide anything that would support an indictment. I'm surprised that homeland security hasn't shut down the prosecutor.


How is life in bizarro-world anyway JJ?

[NoZed Avenger]

Face it, the entire government is working hard to hide anything that would support an indictment.


I'm just trying to picture the government actually working hard . . . on anything.


Uhm. . . Nope. Can't see it. It's like "what is beyond outer space" - I can't hold the concept in my head long enough to look at it.

[curi0us]

Does it make sense? No. But is there actually any law against it? Show me.

If a person signs a security agreement and then violates that agreement, they can be punished. Otherwise, there is no law against it.

Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

snip

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or
causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to
communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to
receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; or

snip

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment
provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793


There is also very broad language in the law covering “Public money, property or records” which Bush’s justice department used to punish a DEA leaker in 2003.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=641

[Orwell]

Funny how US presidents only risk getting in trouble over peccadilloes. They never actually get nailed for their policies... Nixon, who could have been severely criticised for his handling of Vietnam, had Watergate instead (a petty B&E). Bill Clinton got in trouble for playing hide-the-salami at the office. I guess the Iran-contra scandal of the Reagan era didn't quite “take” because it wasn't trivial enough, so that kinda proves the rule. And now, with a bungled war and a derailed economy, there's a CIA-outing mini-scandal.

[Luke T.]

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to charge Lewis Libby with obstruction later today.

Charged with obstruction, not with giving away secrets.

[NoZed Avenger]

And now, with a bungled war and a derailed economy, there's a CIA-outing mini-scandal.

What factors are you using to come up with a derailed economy?

Unemployment? Inflation rate? GDP growth? Housing starts?

Is there any objective criteria being used?

[Dr Adequate]

Department of the Public Debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm)

Total public debt as of 10/27/05: $8,026,029,628,861.82.

If that does not represent a derailment of the economy, are we to assume that it was meant to happen?

I don't remember GWB making any stump speeches along the lines of: "If there's only one thing I've learned from being the idle worthless son of a rich father, and there is, it's that I can spend more than my income and it all works out OK."

[Roadtoad]

Libby has quit. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AiwAd1pCSuMQHVrvfV4mvH FqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby became the first high-ranking White House official in decades to be criminally charged while still in office. A second key figure in the two-year CIA leak investigation, presidential strategist Karl Rove, was spared from criminal charges for the time being.

Libby wasn't indicted specifically for the leak, but special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald left little doubt that he believed Cheney's top aide learned Valerie Plame's classified identity from the CIA, State Department and his own boss and then revealed it to reporters.

"It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security," the prosecutor said. "Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter."

Let's see what happens next.

[Globert]

I was going to say the same thing, except I was going to be more specific and say that the only one who will get anything will be Scooter Libby.

Your doing a heck of a job, Scooter.


My other prediction is that the above phrase will move into popular usage meaning "the kiss of death to a sacrificial lamb" (too many mixed metaphores there?)


Nail on the head to Papa Funk!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9854700/

Good Call

-Globe

[NoZed Avenger]

Department of the Public Debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm)

Total public debt as of 10/27/05: $8,026,029,628,861.82.

If that does not represent a derailment of the economy, are we to assume that it was meant to happen?



So that's it? That's the one factor we look at? I am not interested in arguing what is or isn't important, I just want to be sure that I have the one item we can safely look at to see whether the economy has been derailed.

Does it matter as a percentage of GDP or is it just the number of dollars in gross?