From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note:
An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN (since confirmed by another independent source):
1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and “filed” tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.
The shoe is dropping.
More soon.
(via John Cole)
For what it’s worth, I now think, should these links prove true, that we can expect a series of indictments for perjury and obstruction, which I hope will be followed by an investigation into Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the CIA, and certain members of the media—and then by a thorough public re-airing of the story recently laid out by Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard, which will go a long way toward correcting certain of the established “truths” about pre-war intelligence.
As I argued last evening, lying to the grand jury to cover up complicity in a leak is a crime and should be dealt with seriously, and at the discretion of the prosecutor. If these latest leaks (ah, the irony!) are true, Fitzgerald appears to be leaning toward handing out indictments for crimes committed in the course of refuting an objectively dishonest whisper campaign foisted on the nation by Joseph Wilson and likeminded Bush critics in the CIA—and predictably lapped up by a few credulous members of the press—that was meant to weaken the President (by suggesting he took the US to war on false pretenses) and leave him vulnerable in the 2004 elections.
Under different circumstances, one can easily imagine many progressives rushing to point out that this whole “scandal” is a case of entrapment on a grand scale, and that Wilson’s claims that the Bushies were seeking to punish him for his bravery in exposing administration lies by outing his wife are, in point of fact, the delusions of a self-important self-promoter and hyperpartisan whose actual field report, to the extent the White House paid attention to it at all, actually buttressed their case; but then, such candor would require the kind of reflection and intellectual honesty that many on the left have willfully blinded themselves to in their unending desire to hurt this Administration.
More here and here. Also, keep an eye on TalkLeft and Tom Maguire.
****
update: This Maguire piece is fascinating. Somehow, Tom has turned Plamegate into an Umberto Eco novel.
We’re going to believe Juan Cole now right? And Talkleft? Please. I have more faith in Maguire, so I’ll wait and see what happens. I find it hard to believe anything will come of this, but I guess the MSM believes if they yell enough, maybe Fitz will hear them and feel the need to satisfy their desire for someone to go down.
All this speculation is just that. Look at the facts of this whole debacle. There is nothing there as far as we know and that really is the whole point, we don’t know anything because Fitz has done a pretty good job of keeping this close hold.
Speculation and discussion is part of the blogging experience, Mike.
EMBRACE IT! FREE YOURSELF!
I hope Cole is right. I fear that the left will get it’s way, again, and Rove, Libby, Cheney, etc., will be indicted for conspiracy to almost kinda try to break the law, ala Tom DeLay. My hope hinges on Fitzpatrick being the straight shooter he is reported to be, and going after the real criminals in this, Wilsons, etc.
Mike: You mean John Cole? Different guy from Juan. (LOL)
I am not an animal.
I am pretty certain JUAN Cole is, however.
Because “OF THE PIE”
<objectively dishonest whisper campaign foisted on the nation by Joseph Wilson and likeminded Bush critics in the CIAâ€â€and predictably lapped up by a few credulous members of the pressâ€â€that was meant to weaken the President (by suggesting he took the US to war on false pretenses) and leave him vulnerable in the 2004 elections.</i>
This version may have some kernels of truth in it. If one is to believe it, however, the following question must be answered:
If that’s what was going on, why commit perjury and obstruct justice?
Latest from the AP:
Lawyers close to the Plame investigation report that the key player in the affair has been sent a letter of indictment. They wouldn’t identify the individual, but he is described as small, four-legged, and armored. The individual, code named “‘dillo” was unavailable for comment, but close friends assured the AP that he would dance out of this one smelling like a…..well a ‘dillo.
Hmmm.
I’m still rather curious as to why anyone would risk indictment by testifying to a Grand Jury rather than pleading the 5th Amendment.
What I want to know is where Jeff Gannon/Guckert fits into all this! I’m sure we’ll find out soon.
BECAUSE OF THE HIPPOCAMPUS!
I know its viewed as a long shot, but I’m still betting that there will be no indictments.
All that’s left is someone crying BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY.
Don’t think we’re going to get a moral victory out of this one, gang. If they broke the law, they must answer for it, nevermind the scuzziness of the crew cheering their downfall.
Turing = quality
My thought is that Fitzgerald and his staff were having cocktails after work when suddenly he pulled out his cellphone and said, “Wanna see an AP reporter cream himself?”
TW: Getting, as in, “Getting to fuck with reporters is the best part of the job”.
Under different circumstances, one can easily imagine many progressives rushing to point out that this whole “scandal†is a case of entrapment on a grand scale….
Entrapment? Whatever Libby, Rove, et. al. did, whether it was disclosing Plame’s identity or lying to the grand jury, it was entirely of their own volition.
Except that nobody would have had to say anything about any sourcing had Wilson not lied to reporters, who then published his lies, in the first place.
I implore people to read Hayes’ piece to get some idea of the complete context.
In a sense you are right, Josh. But the reality is that Wilson and his wife were making a political attack on the Bush administration and hiding behind her supposed covert status.
I predict one indictment: George W. Bush.
Because his ultra-wickedness knows no bounds, and because Ted Kennedy’s big fat river-soaked head is due to explode, and, also, because the forces of RIGHTEOUSNESS are due for a big fat spooge on the tits of the American Public.
Somebody’s been watching Cinemax after dark…
I could be wrong, but I think taking the Fifth is only permitted at trial. Not in front of a grand jury.
If anyone can correct me on this, please do so.
I call B.S. on this story.
Pat Fitzgerald is legendary for his methodical, meticulous preparation for cases. The idea that he is at all uncertain how many people he is planning to indict at this late date is laughable. Furthermore, he has to actually get the grand jury to, you know, indict them. I realize that is mostly a formality, but a prosecutor such as Fitzgerald would be, IMHO, unlikely to plan a news conference for a date certain when he actually had no indictments yet in hand.
What’s more, the range of one to five targets is ridiculous as well. This source is so far inside the case that he would have this credulous reporter believe he knows all the timing, etc., but doesn’t know within an error margin of 400% how many people are supposed to be indicted? Right.
I’ll wait for the press conference, thanks.
McGhee, consider yourself corrected.
NO! YOU MUST ACCEPT THE WORD OF AN UBER-INSIDER SOURCE FROM TWN, FRESH AIR! NO FAIR WAITING!
Except that nobody would have had to say anything about any sourcing had Wilson not lied to reporters, who then published his lies, in the first place.
But that isn’t entrapment. To say that person A entrapped person B by doing something that caused person B to commit a crime, without any intent on the part of person A that person B commit that crime, is to do serious violence to the word “entrapment.” If you park your new car outside in your driveway, and I steal it, you haven’t entrapped me. With all respect, it seems like you’re doing what you usually (rightly) call other people out on – twisting the meaning of the term by disregarding the intent of the person to whom the term is applied.
Well, I certainly wasn’t using “entrapment” in a strict legal sense, but regardless, I don’t think your analogy holds up very well. It’s more like I park my car outside in the driveway, you steal it and then you leak the fact to my insurance company that I’ve burned it myself for the insurance money. Then, during the grand jury testimony I’m summoned to for publicly questioning your allegation (during which time I note that your wife runs a chop shop—a fact I learned from my friends on the police force, whom I don’t want to drag into this), I lie about where I got my inside information—and am subsequently prosecuted for perjury when it later comes to light who that inside source was.
Opening statement:
“Yesterday there was a report by the Associated Press that claimed that I would be issuing indictments today. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Press is increasingly, disturbingly wrong.”
If, however, there are indictments: how important is it that it be for the original alleged act, vs. the possible perjury when there was no original crime?
As I was reading the Weekly Standard piece it came to me over and over just how incomplete the legacy media’s coverage of this has been. The depiction of Joe Valerie Plame Wilson as a heroic truth teller tells us more about the legacy media than it does about Plamegate itself.
TW: still- Joe Valerie Plame Wilson still thinks he can lie to the public and the media will cover for him.
Let’s say I’m leaving a bar late at night, I think I am cool to drive. A cop pulls me over just because it is late and he is fishing. I get a little testy he is hassling me without cause and deny I have been drinking. He tests me, and I am under the limit, but it is obvious I have been drinking, so he busts me for obstruction. Might not be entrapment, but it ain’t cool, either.
God willin’ and the creek don’t rise* we’ll see soon enough.**
*something grandma would say.
**In other words, “Go to bed or Santa will pass this house by!”
(Sounds of little kids in feety pajamas scampering into bed and holding real still, in hope that Santa will think they’re asleep, and if we wait long enough, we’ll…hear…zzzzzzzzz)
word: sound. Not a sound was heard from those beds for the rest of the night.
“Under different circumstances, one can easily imagine many progressives rushing to point out that this whole “scandal†is a case of entrapment on a grand scale”
How do you entrap someone into perjury and obstruction when its really simple to avoid perjury and obstruction.
…whose actual field report, to the extent the White House paid attention to it at all, actually buttressed their case; but then, such candor would require the kind of reflection and intellectual honesty that many on the left have willfully blinded themselves to in their unending desire to hurt this Administration.
If you’re basing this on this Washington Post article (and this is where most people eventually source this claim) then you might want to check correction on the side.
Read the Hayes article. And actus, read through the other comments.
“Read the Hayes article.”
None of it mentions entrapment to perjury. If you’re afraid of perjury, just tell the truth. I don’t see whats so hard.
And I don’t see what the Hayes article adds to the leak investigation. Does the veracity of Wilson matter at all to whether we should or should not investigate the leak?
If you can’t see it, I can’t help you. And I’m not here to do your work for you.
If some of Wilson’s field report buttressed the WH case, and other parts were bullshit, why then did the WH not say so at the time Wilson started making noise? Hell, they wouldn’t have needed to go through their media friends, Scotty or Ari before him could have trumpeted the news. They probably wouldn’t have felt the need to retract the “16 words,” either. Right?
Are we to believe that the WH, still way high in the polls, a successful “war president,” less than three months after strutting “mission accomplished,” two weeks after “bring ‘em on” was so cowed by Wilson the liar that they admitted the 16 words should have been deleted from the SOTU because they cared what people might think?
Really, talk about willfully blinded.
BTW, the WS article mentions that “(t)he White House didn’t pay much attention to the Kristof column.” Hayes, or for that matter, anybody else on the right doesn’t either. The second half of the column refers to the case of Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law and head of the Iraqi bioweapons program, who defected in 1995. He maintained that the WMD programs were halted in the early 90’s. He may have been fatally stupid, but he didn’t have anything to gain by lying about that. Contrast with A. Chalabi, who not only expected to become the ruler of the new Saddam-free Iraq, but was also paid $340k per month by the Pentagon for several years so he could give them “valuable intelligence.” That is a self-important self-promoter and hyperpartisan.
Hayes is also careful about inclusion and exclusion of facts about the info from the Niger docs, maybe more about that later.
Hmmm.
@ McGhee
You of your 5th Amendment Right against Self Incrimination. [findlaw link removed; couldn’t get it to render properly]
However you can be compelled to testify before a Grand Jury, but you must be offered immunity from prosecution first. This immunity extends to both state and federal prosecutions that may stem from your testimony.
IANAL so YMMV.
on a side note: I hope these legal issues don’t continue on forever. An education in law was never something I aspired to. And frankly this, reading FindLaw and online debates, is a really ass-backward way of getting one.
Ok, very loose s**t on my part with my first post. I dip my toe into the pool for like the second time and it gets chomped on. I think I’ll just watch the big kids play for now on, cuz lord knows I ain’t ready for the deep end.
We should take our losses on this one. It is clear that at least Libby, and maybe Rove and even Cheney and Bush, were involved in outing a CIA agent. That is a bad deed, without any reasonable defense.
Entrapment. Joe Wilson was a bad guy. They were just trying to set the record straight. These are not reasonable excuses. And lying about it is unacceptable.
As conservatives, we don’t need to resort to such tactics. Our ideas are better, we don’t need to use such tactics and make such lame excuses.
If we have some bad apples, let’s throw them out and maintain our intergrity and credibility.
Many Democrats condemned Clinton for his bad acts. We need to do the same when we learn the same about our guys.
Stand up straight and be proud, and do the right thing.
I agree with Rich. Let’s stand tall and separate ourselves and our party from these bad actors.
“If you can’t see it, I can’t help you. And I’m not here to do your work for you.”
Sorry that your stuff doesn’t work outside of the echo chamber, but there really isn’t much to the there that you’re pointing to. I mean, there’s a lot about wilson, which frankly I’m not in a position to judge whether its right or not.
But you really can’t tell me what that has to do with investigation Plame’s outing? That’s insane.
Or am I entraping you into saying something stupid?
What crystal ball are you using? I have a Mattel Truth-O-Vision2000 and it is kinda fuzzy, I am wondering if I need to get a newer one.
Unbelievable. Faux naivete or raw stupidity?
Two quick reality drive-bys:
1) Cheney can’t be indicted by a special prosecutor. Congress must impeach him, not that the GOP would have the balls to prevent it if Dem’s whine loudly enough.
2) All of this speculation is from two ill-informed sources. In descending order of credulity, we have (1)schlepps like me who know nothing of law, and 2)news media, who are lost without teleprompters and meta-narratives.
Let’s all take a minute to review some of the great speculative failures of the recent past:
DOW 100,000 driven by Internet dog food sales
WMD stockpiles
10,000 dead, mostly from cannibalism, after Katrina
I’m sure everyone could add at least one thing to the above list.
<a>Many Democrats condemned Clinton for his bad acts. </a>
“Bad Clinton! Bad!”
Yes, it was inspring how all of those democrats stood on principle, and then the wormhole opened up and I returned to this universe.
Okay, just so we’re totally clear here, I want to see that bit one more time:
Jeff Goldstein believes that crimes were committed? He admits it? Him, of all people? Be still my heart!
But I’m just not seeing this:
Why did they have to say anything about his wife to refute his lies? Yellowcake existed or not, Saddam tried to buy it or not, Saddam succeeded or not. Where does Valerie Plame come into it? They could have discredited him by showing why he was wrong. Instead they discredited him by implying that his wife pulled strings to get him a free vacation which he then used to write something critical of the administration. No one forced the leaker, whoever that was, to tell a reporter that his wife was a CIA agent.
Crimes were committed or they weren’t. The fact that the alleged crimes were for political payback against a man who criticized the administration, justifiably or not, doesn’t make them less criminal.
I think Rich has some good advice here. Of course, I happen to be on the left side of the political divide so what do I know, I’m probably lying about it anyway.
Uh, not for nuttin’ Ian, but I think what you meant to write was “splooge”.
Philistine.
Q: So why shouldn’t we believe Wilson?
A: Because he is a partisan hack who blew the mission and wasn’t really qualified for it anyway.
Q: Then why did you send him over there?
A: …
It is a little trickier than staying in the lines when you color, but hang in there.
Why did they have to say anything about his wife to refute his lies? Where does Valerie Plame come into it? They could have discredited him by showing why he was wrong.
Do you really think that nepotism, or for that matter motivatian, matters not to judging one’s credibilty? If so, then I judge your own quite poorly. As for showing why Wilson was wrong, they would’ve either had to sent someone else to Niger, or use his own report, which of course would’ve broken the law. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and damn you’re naive.
******FOX NEWS ALERT******
There will be no news today.
And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Well, obviously how he was selected for this super duper mission was relevant. The person that got him the job was his wife. Then he implied that Cheney sent him and he reported back to Cheney. So, to set the story straight, don’t you think it was important to announce that the CIA, at the behest of a CIA employee (Plame) arranged for him to go to Niger.
She was (and is) an intergal part of the whole deal. She suggested him for the trip; she arranged the CIA meet and brought him in. That is why it is important to mention “his wife” in the context of refuting his lies.
Of course nepotism matters, but you make it sound like people would have died if the administration couldn’t discredit him immediately. They needed to say he was wrong – fine. But you’re saying they needed to do it so badly and urgently that they couldn’t refute his claims, they had to out a CIA agent?
And I’m no expert, but I somehow doubt it would have been against the law to use his own report to prove him wrong. I guess I must have missed the part where Wilson himself did prison time for revealing classified information in his editorial.
Do you think crimes were committed, eDog? (Funny how that’s a matter of opinion, but until Fitzgerald actually indicts or charges anyone, we’re all just guessing and assuming, really.) If crimes were committed, does it matter if Wilson is a nice person or not?
I’m still hung up on the fact that some moron over at Huffingplatz believes that getting a brisk cox moking on the clock while running the country has nothing to do with how well the country is being run.
Wilson is a liar until proven truthful. He and his wife are a couple of megalomaniacs and they are basting themselves in the sweet gravy of national news as we speak.
From the Hayes article:
That’s it. That’s the point of including it here.
This ain’t John Cole’s site, Actus. You want to start baiting me by taking pot shots at me personally? I’ll ban your anonymous ass in a heart beat.
What’s with this new lefty tactic of pretending context doesn’t matter?
Cyrus—your entire argument begs the question because it proceeds from the premise that the White House was looking to punish Wilson and damage Plame. In the alternate universe we inhabit, the mention—without revealing a name—that Wilson’s wife works in the CIA was used to provide context on Wilson’s credibility in response to a story that it turns out was a willful lie.
And I said in both my posts that criminals should be prosecuted at the discretion of the prosecutor. Why pretend I’ve hedged? Really, knock the chip off your shoulder if you want to be treated respectfully around here.
Incidentally, Rich and Ron (the person who agrees with him)? Same IP address.
Forgive me if I’m skeptical about their conservative bona fides.
Also, I’m a bit perplexed about this bit from Cyrus: “Jeff Goldstein believes that crimes were committed? He admits it? Him, of all people? Be still my heart!”
What’s the suggestion here, Cyrus?
“That’s it. That’s the point of including it here”
The point is, why is it not ‘possible to understand the investigation?’ All that’s needed to understand the investigation is that there was an alleged leak and alleged lying under oath about the leak. And that these are being investigated.
Whats impossible to understand about that? A leak occurs, the CIA forwards it for investigation, and so on. That’s really all that’s needed to understand.
What understanding does the story of Wilson provide? Motivation for the leak? Excuses? Something else that’s equally stupid? Say what it is. I’m not entraping you. I’m just asking.
Because the investigation was born of a set of events?
You want to concentrate only on a particular part of the investigation—which is hardly surprising. I want to remind people that there was a lead-up to the grand jury stuff that has you all rock hard in your pants.
If you don’t find it particularly useful—and of course you don’t, because it reminds people of the perfidy that started all this—that’s your myopic l’il prerogative. But I find it ironic that somebody who doesn’t want me bringing any of this stuff up because it frustrates what HE wants to focus on would invoke echo chambers, particularly around here.
(Speaking of which, wonder how Hugh Hewitt is feeling about my echo chamber these days).
And actus? You seem to think repeating the entrapment thing is cute and pointed. You’re welcome to keep doing it, but I just thought I’d save you the trouble by letting you know up front that it just comes off as unnecessarily petulant.
Because the investigation was born of a set of events?
No way, man! This all happened in a vacuum–a vacuum of CHIMPY LIES!!!
http://www.1starmy.com/uploadimages/Product_2360.jpg
It’s like the Able Danger investigation.
A guy knew more than what he’d divulged. He’d like to keep that between him and his friends. A guy gets caught stuffing documents into his boxer-briefs at the National Archive and that in turn launches an investigation of a scope that has never been or likely will never be seen again in many lifetimes.
The press have latched onto that Able Danger thing like pitbulls.
”. But I find it ironic that somebody who doesn’t want me bringing any of this stuff up because it frustrates what HE wants to focus on would invoke echo chambers, particularly around here.”
Its not that I don’t want you to bring it up. It’s that I want you to tell me what the relevance is. More than relelvance. Why its “impossible to understand” the investigation without it.
“And actus? You seem to think repeating the entrapment thing is cute and pointed. “
You keep repeating that I should read the article which I’ve told you is inadequate. It just sounds ignorant. I keep repeating it because you don’t address it at all. Its not just cute and pointed. Its also a legitimate concern of mine. I don’t want you to think i’m trying to get you to say something stupid.
Technically, you can’t have a vacuum of anything. That’s what makes it a vacuum.
Does it seem odd to anyone else that “uber-insiders” are illegaly leaking about an investigation into allegedly illegal leaks.
If I were on the receivng end of one of these, I’d burn my notes after I wiped off my shoes.
JG: 2+2=4
actus: what does math have to do with how much 2 and 2 is?
JG: 2+2=4
actus: why won’t you answer my question? afraid or just stupid? what is 2 and 2?
JG: 2+2=4
actus: i dont see it, what does that have to do with anything, just tell me what 2 and 2 is
JG: 2+2=4
how long can this go on?
Thanks for making that clearer. But my argument does not proceed from the premise that the WH illegally outed a NOC to punish her spouse, only that they illegally outed a NOC. (I happen to believe that is the case, even though I realize it’s on much shakier ground. But my argument does not depend on it.)
You certainly do say crimes were committed and should be punished. Then you say that the crimes were totally necessary, that their victims were opportunists of the worst sort and downright con artists, that there was a vast conspiracy to weaken the President for no good reason. You go on to write an even longer paragraph claiming that The Left (TM) would react even worse than the right is, if the shoe were on the other foot. Now, maybe the implication that you’re hedging bothers you, but I do get the impression that you’re “more outraged by the outrage,” to quote a similar situation.
And as for my “He admits it?” comment, the suggestion was only that this is the most critical I’ve seen you be of this administration. Probably just advertising my ignorance, I realize, but it just seemed funny to me. I have a weird sense of humor.
Uh, no. I don’t say the crimes (if there were such) were necessary. I don’t excuse them. I just find it ironic that, as with the Martha Stewart case, they may have grown out of non-crime.
And I didn’t say the Left™ would react worse than the right. I said progressives would, in different circumstances, be engaging in the kind of analysis I engaged in with my post. See, for instance, the Clinton / Starr era.
And as for my never being critical of this administration…uh, have you seen my Miers posts? Or my Schiavo posts?
This has nothing to do with your having a “weird sense of humor.” It has to do with your having a preconceived notion about me, and going with it—empirical evidence to the contrary be damned.
But who is Causabon? Libby? Fitzgerald? Maguire?
Turing word: way, as in, no.
You’re right, you don’t. That was eDog. “As for showing why Wilson was wrong, they would’ve either had to sent [sic] someone else to Niger, or use his own report, which of course would’ve broken the law. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and damn you’re naive.” eDog grants as a premise that what happened was illegal, but says that all the administration’s other options were as well. I apologize – I shouldn’t have assumed you felt that way, just him.
You wrote “…crimes committed in the course of refuting an objectively dishonest whisper campaign…” If you feel that “excuse” is an incorrect way to describe that, would “understand” be more acceptable?
As I said, advertising my ignorance. I read your blog sometimes but not as regularly as a lot of others, so that posts I’m most likely to see are the ones that are more… shall we say, inflammatory.
Cyrus: Is there a law specifying that the outting of a NOC is illegal? It certainly isn’t covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 which covers ‘covert agents’ only and Valerie Plame certainly wasn’t a ‘covert agent’ at the time when her profession became public. (See definitions.)
No. It’s a statement of fact. If any crimes were committed, they were committed in the course of refuting Wilson’s lies.
“See, for instance, the Clinton / Starr era.”
Starr/Fitzgerald comparisons are a great idea.
Ok, as long as we’re clear that it’s a bit of a novel definition of entrapment. The point of my analogy was only that, when person A does something that causes person B to commit a crime, that alone does not mean that person A has entrapped person B.
Also, I’m not clear on what lies they were refuting in this specific instance. While Wilson certainly appears to have lied more than a few times, the NYT op-ed didn’t actually claim that Cheney sent him, only that Cheney inquired about the yellowcake matter and the CIA sent Wilson. Perhaps he claimed that Cheney sent him in another forum, but I don’t see that in the Hayes piece. But I did just down a 40 of OE so perhaps I’m not reading carefully.
Turing word: fear
An interesting contrast – over the last quarter of a century, the clearest difference between Democrat and Republican administrations is that Republican administrations cooperate with independant/special prosecutors and Democrat administrations do not.
“An interesting contrast – over the last quarter of a century, the clearest difference between Democrat and Republican administrations is that Republican administrations cooperate with independant/special prosecutors and Democrat administrations do not.”
To comment on that would be to comment on an ongoing investigation.