The Plame Game
 

Source

There's a buzz right now that Fitzgerald is going to be making an annoucement some time this week about his investigation which has come to a close.

Any thoughts? Opinions? Is this a biggie or much ado about nada?

I have mixed opinions. Quite honestly. I fear (and this is not an original idea on my part) that it will be some sort of obstruction charge based on a technicality. Something like "We asked you if you had spoken with this person in November of 2002 and you said you couldn't remember, but we have your phone records and you did.".

Something like that would be disturbing to me because it will be the same thing they did to Martha Stewart.

The prosecutors could not prove she committed a crime, so they prosecuted the supposed cover up of the crime that they couldn't prove she committed. That is very dangerous.

In the future, does that mean that when anyone is accused of a crime by the government, the case will be "we cannot prove it, and because we cannot prove it, we are sure you are covering it up, so you will go to jail for the obstruction charge."

That is scary.

I guess I'm still very cloudy about the whole thing.

So many questions:

The NY Times seemed to have been behind Miller with this whole thing and then they're not... ?

Why does Novak still have a job at CNN?

Now people are saying that Bush new Rove leaked right after it happened...

I'm confused but very interested in seeing where this is going.

I was thinking about Martha recently, too. But not for Plamegate but for Fristgate.

What's Plame?

They're going to be charged with perjury, and the 'Pubs in the Senate are already preparing a damage-control campaign asserting that perjury is a technicality charge. So don't blame me or anyone when Clinton comes up in conversation afterwards (cough*impeachment*cough).

It depends on what the charge of perjury entails. Perjury involves intent to deceive, if I am correct, as in knowingly making a false statement while under oath. What I have read is that it will most likely come down to something like Rove (or whomever) saying he didn't talk with someone - or didn't remember talking to someone - on a given date and phone records showed he did. Well, is that intent to deceive? Or is it possible he didn't remember a phone call from 2 years ago?

To bring up the "C" word, I doubt (unless he was baggin interns on a daily basis) that Clinton forgot. He was making an attempt to deceive and therefore was guilty of perjury.

I am keenly aware that the charges against Clinton had nothing to do with the original purpose of the special prosecutor. That appears to be what will happen here as well. I don't think there will be charges regarding leaking the name "Plame" (which I don't consider to be a "leak" anyway from what I've read, but we've been through that elsewhere), but there will apparently be charges accusing someone (or more than one) with an attempt to cover up what cannot be proven.

As I stated earlier, that sets a dangerous precedent. The government can now try anyone for anything, and if they cannot prove their case, they can find any inconsistency or errant memory and charge the individual with covering up what cannot be proven. "We know you're guilty, we cannot prove it, so we will charge you with covering it up."

That scares me. Regardless of party. Regardless of who.

Do you mean like the post right below yours?

I believe any person interested in the truth before covering their own backside would and should review all relevant archived materials before testifying in front of a Grand Jury.

Are we to believe that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby did not take the time to review their actions before taking the stand? Or is it more likely they found themselves in a trap not entirely of their own making? Do you think they felt any pressure to lie since the President's press secretary has been telling the world for 2 years that Scooter and FartBlossom are not involved?

And as to being scared? We all should be.

Rove changed his story 3 or 4 times to the Grand Jury. It's not merely a matter of poor recollection, it's a matter of making up a new tale each and every time new facts are revealed.

It's not like the government can convict of perjury everytime it can't prove a case, but a conviction for perjury can be achieved when evidence demonstrates to the proper degree that the accused is likely not to have forgotten the vital information they claim to have forgotten.

As to what the government can charge; well, yes, the government and district attorneys in general can charge anything, but it's unlikely to happen without evidence sufficient for a good chance at conviction. When I say government, I am meaning a special prosecutor is who purportedly above politics. Fitzgerald has proven himself to be such a man, but - as we might recall from the "C" word days, that's not always the case.

I am unaware of how any can review several years worth of records and be completely prepared for anything and everything he might be asked, but that's OK.

Go ahead and call my post spin. Right now everything in the media is unsubstantiated spin based on information that is not known. Except by ISM apparently. I will reserve my judgement of any "technicality" until after I see what, if any, charges are brought forth. I simply said it would be ludicrous for the charges to be limited to obstruction or perjury on something such as an unremembered phone call. I wonder how many times "C" said he couldn't remember something in his grand jury testimony.

And you have read the grand jury testimony? Or are they reports from the same media that keeps telling us that the indictments were to be handed down Wednesday? Interesting....I thought grand jury information was secretive. I'm glad you know what was testified to and how many times it has been changed.

And if Fitzgerald does not hand down the indictments as you would like to see, I hope you still have the same opinion of the man. I know nothing of him.

well, if they can't find anything on Rove, they can always charge him with obstruction...... worked against Martha

Oh, I don't think you'd have to go that far. But the period between Wilson's Op/Ed and Novak's column? Definitely!

What's your take on these leaks? They've got to be coming from the lawyers, don't they?

Attorneys taking leaks? Don't they just use the bathroom like everyone else?

Get it? Plame Game? Plame Game. Plame instead of Blame. Isn't that clever? Ha-ha. Heh... heh.... :D

Never mind. :p

I still don't get any of this shenanigans. I guess I'll just have to wait until the Fitzgerald announcement...


Whatever the outcome, I love this picture:

I think the leaks come from people with political agendas, whatever they may be. They could be coming from those with a right-leaning stance, making things sound worse than they are so that when indictments come they are no big deal. They could be coming from those with a left-leaning stance, making things seems worse than they are to try to inflict political damage prior to something coming out that isn't really that bad. I can't really think of a reason to understate what the real charges may be, but I'm sure there are politcially savvy reasons for someone to do so.

I have no idea about the leaks, really. All I know is that to pay attention to any of them serves no purpose. Whatever is being leaked, I don't believe it can really be trusted. I'll just wait until the charges, if any, are announced.

Oops.

I mean, this picture:

News Banner at CNN:

> BREAKING NEWS


"Special prosecutor is focusing on whether presidential adviser Karl Rove committed perjury in CIA leak probe, sources tell CNN."


Hah hah hah hah hah hah.... Sorry- I just love the irony in this. I'm not holding my breath, but I intend to enjoy every moment as it comes.

Wow. If Rove gets it, it'll be like Xmas!
:evil:
CNN Article

Scooter's toast, Rove's in the clear. For now.
Source

5 counts for Libby:

1 count obstruction of justice
2 counts of perjury
2 counts of making false statements

Lied to FBI agents on Oct 14, Nov 26, 2003.
Committed perjury on March 5 and 24, 2004.
Engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding investigation.

:eek:

Libby just resigned.

I need a golf caddy.

And Libby should resign. Glad he did. He should be prosecuted for the crimes, and if found guilty, serve his time or pay his fine or both - whatever the law requires.

Personal advisor to the second most powerful man in the country and maybe the world. Hmm. I'm thinking this indictment should have bigger ramifications. Like Cheney himself.

You think or you wish?

Can't speak for G.C. - but for me? Yeah, I think. He's Cheney's Chief of Staff, not merely "personal advisor." It's possible that he acted without the knowledge of his superior, but I find that concept doubtful.

It's likely that Cheney put 50 degrees of deniability between himself and the actual leak of Plame's name (which is why we likely won't see indictments as to the actual crime being investigated), but the degrees of cover-up often get dangerously close to the perpetrators. I really don't think it happens to stop at Scooter's desk and doesn't cross the tiny thin line to Dick's.

I believe I said 'think(ing)'.
;)

But it doesn't appear that there is a finding that any crime happened initially just that Libby wasn't truthful about it after the investigation began. Whether Libby did it on his own or because of Cheney, if it were a crime to have leaked it Libby would still be indictable for it.

Of course, it may be that there'll be more from the next grand jury.

My theory is that he might be waiting for Libby to speak out about the others... But it's just a theory.

I do like the conundrum of it though, since most people in favor of open government do not want to see these laws enforced against leaks to journalists, and yet many would really like to see the administration get burned however possible.

I'm not so sure about that.

TalkingPointsMemo.com has a juicy little tidbit on that subject.

Kind of an annoying indictment. Other than mentioning that the purpose of the grand jury was to investigate possible violations of Title 50, Section 421 and Title 18, Section 793 (two laws making it a crime to reveal confidential information) the indictments do not adress these issues at all.

All five charges are just iterations from the same set of lies (he misrepresented his reaction on Meet the Press and that he told Miller and Cooper that other reporters were saying that Plame was his wife or ). Interesting reading, but doesn't address any of the interesting questions. It does not at all address whether Libby knew Plame was classified, though it does seem to accept that such knowledge would make the case a crime (something that many watchers do not agree with).

Interesting reading.

New development. 2/9/06.
Source