If I were Bush I would save everyone some trouble and save the tax payers a load of money. I would pardon him TODAY.

Serious Question Jeff: It seems I read somewhere you work in/for a think tank. If that is so, do you have any conservatives in the tank to keep your group from developing a group dynamic?

If not- you better think about it before you all become one mindset.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

We are non-partisan. One of my interns, who just finished his work and left I'm sad to say, was from the Heritage Foundation. I have also worked with Heritage Foundation and Hoover Institute people concerning Indonesia. Brilliant people, but of course wrong politically.

We have interesting discussions.

And to keep you from having a single mindset, you have me!

Oh, by the way, I was just listening to Sean Hannity and he was raving about how Fitzgerald had repeatedly tried to link Libby to the Bush administration. Imagine that!

And yes, I think Libby has a chance, I don't know how good, for an appeal. He was sentenced under the new federal guidlines instituted by the Republicans and Bush two years ago in response to the two Supreme Court decisions. It is very difficult, although, as we have seen not impossible, for the Republican Congress and the administration to legislate away the Constitution. I hope this attempt fails too.

Finally, as to the pardon, I would not expect it before the appeals process has ended. We will have advance warning though. Homeland Security will raise the terror level and claim an imminent attack right before the pardon.

Did I manage to push all your buttons Mixer?

Peace!

First, Sean Hannity is a house painter who said the right things at the right time for FOX. He was an idiot here in Atlanta for awhile after he quit painting houses. He and Limbaugh are similarly educated--none.
Also, I assume you were joking about Homeland Security raising the terror level at the same time Bush pardons Libby, bit I would disagree with it being a joke. Something of that nature is certainly not beyond Cheney and Rove, although Bush would never think about it in the first place. If Cheney says so, it will be done, or something similar, they have a million of them.

Just curious. Thanks for the info. Sometimes in my business we begin to get one mindset and I try to avoid letting that happen.

No, none of buttons got pushed at all. I think you have good solid opinions that are consistently wrong.

But, you are genuine and sincere and most of the time, when you are not too stressed, you are cordial and try to understand how our confused conservative mindset operates.

Keep in mind the argument of 'nature vs. nurture' when you deal with us. We are all, to some extent, a product of our environment and life experiences.

Don't let Denise stress you. She creates three puzzles for you simultaneously: She's a woman, she's a conservative, and she is smarter than you.

Have a good day Jeff!

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

So you'd pardon Libby today Mixer? Is this because you don't consider Perjury a crime? Or because it falls under IOKIYAR exceptions?

(IOKIYAR = it's okay if you are Republican)

It's funny, I always thought you were the sort that had respect for the law.
_____________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

I think the investigation was screwed from the get go by ignoring Armitage. Yes, it's a crime!! he should pay something (more than he already has I mean).

With Berger out for $50k and Armitage out 'Scott Free', I would save the taxpayers money and hit him with a fine (about 50-100k) and no jail time and end it all today.

I would have done the same thing with Martha Stewart who was caught for a similar offense. But no one listens to me. Jeff seems to think he has a good shot at appeal. I'm not so sure. Martha lost her appeal - I think Scooter will too.

Regardless, who cares what happens to 'Scooter' other than 'Scooter's' family of course?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR, 3/6/07 -- It's a little hard to follow because Blitzer will not shut up & let Toensing answer without his interrupting her.

TOENSING: Well, I didn't think justice was served by bringing the case in the first place.

TOENSING: That's not (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- but, Wolf, there's a difference between lying and two witnesses' [Matt Cooper and Tim Russert] memories differing. I mean look at how the inconsis...

Blitzer interrrupts / TOENSING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

TOENSING: You usually have to have something else, like Martha Stewart, there was witnesses there that [said?] she asked me to lie. You have none of that in this case and...

_______________________________

Martha Stewart

"Given this extensive background in trading and rules oversight [she's a former stockbroker who rose to be a member of the NYSE Board of Governors], Stewart was viewed as actively being complicit in the insider trading charges. As a side note, if she had held her ImClone shares, she would have eventually made a significant profit.

"Some libertarian commentators, especially those in the Ludwig von Mises Institute, argue that Stewart's trial was unfair and she was in fact a political prisoner. The right-wing libertarian website Lewrockwell.com also archived several articles defending Stewart."

_______________________________

"Martha Stewart's Surreal Ordeal" (2/23/04)

"career-minded lawyers who were fishing for a high profile victim to advance their careers"

"The notion of an independent judiciary in a democracy is a myth. The judicial system is every bit as susceptible to the corrupting influence of the power, perks, and prestige that can accrue in the private sector."
_______________________________

"Convicted for Fearing Conviction" (3/17/04)

"This entrapment was easily facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18 in the United States Code. This makes it an offense to make 'a materially false' statement to a federal official — even when one is not under oath. (It is perfectly acceptable, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into fibbing.) Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations."

_______________________________

"The Attack on Martha" (6/21/02)

"No doubt, Stewart's scalp would look mighty fine on the pole of a career prosecutor seeking political fame or future legal fortune. Fanning flames of envy, prosecutors are able to go after people who are rich and often unpopular."

"Giuliani was able to parlay his 'innovative' prosecutions of Milken and Helmsley into fame and fortune, and Joel Klein, who led the government's case against Microsoft, was able to parlay his acts of destruction against the NASDAQ companies into an antitrust attorney's job that pays him millions of dollars a year. Janet Reno might be able to turn the Waco massacre into a job as governor of Florida. [Thankfully, that prediction didn't come true!]"

_______________________________

"Political Prisoner" (6/9/03)

"Unlike the typical set of criminal laws that exist to protect innocent people (i.e. laws against murder, assault, and theft), Stewart has been indicted under a set of laws that exist for one and only one purpose: to gain convictions . . . . Too much is at stake politically for the government to back down now."

"In the modern world of federal injustice, if a prosecutor wants indictments, it is doubtful that the grand jurors will do otherwise. That alone shows how weak the government's original case really was."

"The obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and fraud charges that she faces exist only as a tool by which to gain a conviction — any conviction — when the investigation into the original 'crimes' becomes a dry hole."

"In looking at the Times' account, one must remember that the 'crime' of obstruction of justice is as murky as the laws against 'insider trading.' Thus, the real issue here is whether or not the law acts as a shield to protect individuals from wrongdoing by the state or by others, or is simply a tool which the political masters use as a whip to keep people in line."

"It is politics, not the pursuit of justice, which is driving this case . . . . Her wealth and public persona make her a convenient target of a very political U.S. Department of Justice and of U.S. attorneys who see the example of the Guiliani path to fame and fortune . . . . These are dark times, indeed, for the pursuit of justice in the United States of America."

_______________________________

Any more insight into this in relation to the Libby trial?

I have personal knowledge of a federal trial where prosecutors wanted any kind of conviction, no matter what, and they managed to "investigate" for such a long time and threaten with so many charges that the defendants were severely financially damaged. One of the defendants died a premature death from the stress. I would describe the prosecutor and investigators as "unprincipled," and I never sensed that there was ever any "presumption of innocence" from the very beginning of the investigation. There was a desire to get a promotion, or something similar, not justice.

So, I am more skeptical than most perhaps about the "fairness" of our judicial system, especially on the federal level, and that is why I have a personal reaction to Libby's trial and conviction.

Although not knowing all of the ins and outs of Martha's trial, I sensed that it was unjust, too. Instead of concentrating on real crime [such as convicting Berger for stealing classified documents and the Clintons' money-for-pardons deals (no, I can't name exactly what specific crime that they committed for all of you who charge me with being "stupid") and deporting the illegal alien criminals, etc.], the DOJ seems involved in these types of "investigations" too much.

To quote Basmati, “I will NOT apologize, under ANY circumstances, for having an opinion.”

_______________________________

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ~ Lord Acton

If history is a guide, the Bush family traditionally pardons convicted perjurers on Christmas and/or the day after Christmas, two traditionally slow news days. That's when Bush I pardoned Caspar Weinberger for lying under oath about Poppy Bush's non-involvement in Iran-Contra.
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

Isn't that when the 'Turkey' usually gets pardoned?

Here are a few 'Turkeys' that were pardoned by Bill Clinton:

Commutations

1. Benjamin Berger
2. Ronald Henderson Blackley
3. Bert Wayne Bolan
4. Gloria Libia Camargo
5. Charles F. Campbell
6. David Ronald Chandler
7. Lau Ching Chin
8. Donald R. Clark
9. Loreta De-Ann Coffman
10. Derrick Curry
11. Velinda Desalus
12. Jacob Elbaum
13. Linda Sue Evans
14. Loretta Sharon Fish
15. Antoinette M. Frink
16. David Goldstein
17. Gerard A. Greenfield
18. Jodie E. Israel
19. Kimberly Johnson
20. Billy Thornton Langston Jr.
21. Belinda Lynn Lumpkin
22. Peter MacDonald - President of the Navajo Nation
23. Kellie Ann Mann
24. Peter Ninemire
25. Hugh Ricardo Padmore
26. Arnold Paul Prosperi
27. Melvin J. Reynolds - Democratic Congressman from Illinois - bank fraud and obstruction of justice
28. Pedro Miguel Riveiro
29. Dorothy Rivers - lead official in Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, plead guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money
30. Susan Rosenberg
31. Kalmen Stern
32. Cory Stringfellow
33. Carlos Anibal Vignali - convicted of cocaine trafficking
34. Thomas Wilson Waddell III
35. Harvey Weinig
36. Kim Allen Willis
37. Kimba Smith
38. Antonio Camacho Negron - FALN militant

Pardons

1. Verla Jean Allen (1990 false statements to an agency of the United States)
2. Nicholas M. Altiere (1983 importation of cocaine)
3. Bernice Ruth Altschul (1992 money laundering conspiracy)
4. Joe Anderson Jr. (1988 income tax evasion)
5. William Sterling Anderson (1987 defraudment of a financial institution, false statements to a financial institution, wire fraud)
6. Mansour Azizkhani (1984 false statements in bank loan applications)
7. Cleveland Victor Babin Jr. (1987 using the U.S. mail service to defraud)
8. Chris Harmon Bagley (1989 conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
9. Scott Lynn Bane (Unlawful distribution of marijuana)
10. Thomas Cleveland Barber (Issuing worthless checks)
11. Peggy Ann Bargon (Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act)
12. David Roscoe Blampied (possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
13. William Arthur Borders Jr. (Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery)
14. Arthur David Borel (Odometer Rollback)
15. Douglas Chrles Borel (Odometer Rollback)
16. George Thomas Brabham (Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank)
17. Almon Glenn Braswell (1983 mail fraud and perjury)
18. Leonard Browder (Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud)
19. David Steven Brown (Securities fraud and mail fraud)
20. Delores Caroylene Burleson, aka Delores Cox Burleson (Possession of Marijuana)
21. John H. Bustamante (wire fraud)
22. Mary Louise Campbell
23. Eloida Candelaria
24. Dennis Sobrevinas Capili
25. Donna Denise Chambers
26. Douglas Eugene Chapman
27. Ronald Keith Chapman
28. Francisco Larois Chavez
29. Henry Cisneros (former HUD Secretary)
30. Roger Clinton, Jr. (half-brother of President Bill Clinton)
31. Stuart Harris Cohn
32. David Marc Cooper
33. Ernest Harley Cox Jr.
34. John F. Cross Jr.
35. Reickey Lee Cunningham
36. Richard Anthony De Labio
37. John Deutch (former Director of Central Intelligence Agency)
38. Richard Douglas
39. Edward Reynolds Downe
40. Marvin Dean Dudley
41. Larry Lee Duncan
42. Robert Clinton Fain
43. Marcos Arcenio Fernandez
44. Alvarez Ferrouillet
45. William Dennis Fugazy
46. Lloyd Reid George
47. Louis Goldstein
48. Rubye Lee Gordon
49. Pincus Green
50. Robert Ivey Hamner
51. Samuel Price Handley
52. Woodie Randolph Handley
53. Jay Houston Harmon
54. Rick Hendrick
55. John Hummingson
56. David S. Herdlinger
57. Debi Rae Huckleberry
58. Warren C. Hultgren Jr.
59. Donald Ray James
60. Stanley Pruet Jobe
61. Ruben H. Johnson
62. Linda Jones
63. James Howard Lake
64. June Louise Lewis
65. Salim Bonnor Lewis
66. John Leighton Lodwick
67. Hildebrando Lopez
68. Jose Julio Luaces
69. James Timothy Maness
70. James Lowell Manning, (1982, aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate income tax return)
71. John Robert Martin
72. Frank Ayala Martinez
73. Silvia Leticia Beltran Martinez
74. John Francis McCormick
75. Susan H. McDougal
76. Howard Mechanic
77. Brook K. Mitchell Sr.
78. Samuel Loring Morison
79. Charles Wilfred Morgan III
80. Richard Anthony Nazzaro
81. Charlene Ann Nosenko
82. Vernon Raymond Obermeier
83. Miguelina Ogalde
84. David C. Owen
85. Robert W. Palmer
86. Kelli Anne Perhosky
87. Richard H. Pezzopane
88. Orville Rex Phillips
89. Vinson Stewart Poling Jr.
90. Norman Lyle Prouse
91. Willie H.H. Pruitt Jr.[1]
92. Danny Martin Pursley Sr.
93. Charles D. Ravenel
94. William Clyde Ray
95. Alfredo Luna Regalado
96. Ildefonso Reynes Ricafort
97. Marc Rich - tax evasion fugitive
98. Howard Winfield Riddle
99. Richard Wilson Riley Jr.
100. Samuel Lee Robbins
101. Joel Gonzales Rodriguez
102. Michael James Rogers
103. Anna Louise Ross
104. Dan Rostenkowski - Former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal
105. Gerald Glen Rust
106. Jerri Ann Rust
107. Bettye June Rutherford
108. Gregory Lee Sands
109. Adolph Schwimmer
110. Albert A. Seretti Jr.
111. Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw
112. Dennis Joseph Smith
113. Gerald Owen Smith
114. Stephen A. Smith
115. Jimmie Lee Speake
116. Charles Bernard Stewart
117. Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins
118. Fife Symington III - former Arizona governor
119. Richard Lee Tannehill
120. Nicholas C. Tenaglia
121. Gary Allen Thomas
122. Larry Weldon Todd
123. Olga C. Trevino
124. Ignatious Vamvouklis
125. Patricia A. Van De Weerd
126. Christopher V. Wade
127. Bill Wayne Warmath
128. Jack Kenneth Watson
129. Donna Lynn Webb
130. Donald William Wells
131. Robert H. Wendt
132. Jack L. Williams
133. Kavin Arthur Williams
134. Robert Michael Williams
135. Jimmie Lee Wilson
136. Thelma Louise Wingate
137. Mitchell Couey Wood
138. Warren Stannard Wood
139. Dewey Worthey
140. Rick Allen Yale
141. Joseph A. Yasak
142. William Stanley Yingling
143. Phillip David Young
144. Keith Sanders
145. Darren Muci
146. John Scott (not a full pardon)
147. Anthony M Pilla

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

"Isn't that when the 'Turkey' usually gets pardoned?"

Enjoy reading your posts!

Have you read this from The Boston Globe?

"Pardons Re-emerge as Issue in Clinton Run" (2/28/07)

Judicial Watch last year tried to obtain unredacted documents related to the pardon of the Gregorys [from whom Tony Rodham received more than $100,000 to broker their pardons] but were rebuffed by the Bush administration, which said releasing them would violate executive privilege. [Will he receive any commendation from liberals?]

A Justice Department official wrote to Judicial Watch on Jan. 16 that "it is likely that any new allegations would be outside of the five-year statute of limitations period."

[Isn't he called "Slick Willy"?]

______________________________

Hollywood mogul and former Clinton supporter David Geffen criticized the Clintons for the Rich pardon.

"It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained."

______________________________

Have you heard Fred Thompson's comments about Libby? Based on his background as an assistant U.S. Attorney and defense attorney, he didn't think highly of the proceedings -- Plame was not covert -- (can't remember his exact words now) and said that Libby should be pardoned.

Here's a copy of the transcript.

"I've never seen a case where so many government offices, and officials, and entities fell down on the job, and helped perpetuate an injustice for their own ends. I mean, it's tragic."

"The Justice Department should never have appointed special counsel."

[Seems like the DOJ has failed in many ways.]

How many did Bush pardon? How about Bush senior? Must be much worse since everyone hates them. How many? Huh?

As of Now, President George W. Bush had issued 113 presidential pardons to people who have served their entire sentence, and has commuted in addition the sentences of three people.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

For obvious reasons had to have been Mark Rich. I understand that Denise (I believe it was) lobbyed really, really hard and often for his release.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Someone will have to tell Mudcat though...... that all of those Clinton pardons I listed were just a partial list from just ONE DAY - his last day in office, 2001.

I thought her name was Daknees? No?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

A huge job awaits scooter as soon as he clears probation for sacrificing so for us while in Washington. At least, all the others had one who left. Putting off filthy rich for a few years isn't a bad deal--Cheney got 30-50 million out of Halliburton when he left Washington the first time. Probably got 100 million more coming if he lives--but his daughter will get it anyway, I suppose.

Wow, Bill made 10 million this year. The Clintons, as government 'servants', have managed to make themselves in to multi-millionaires. Pretty slick, huh?

They report a net worth of 20-50 million at the moment. Just a couple good ole' common folk from Arkansas - yup.

(I wonder how much Bill would have cleared if Monika had dry cleaned 'the dress'?)

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

And how much money has the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (aka "God") shovelled to the Bushes over the years?

______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

And how much money has the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (aka "God") shovelled to the Bushes over the years?

I give up bas - how much?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

The Rev Moon has gotten very canny about how he funnels money to the Bushes. We know of at least one questionable million dollar donation.

But it works both ways..Dubya channelled $470K of your federal tax dollars to a Moonie Abstinence-only program that teaches that French kissing spreads HIV!
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

... you know how sneaky those French are! Shhhhhhh!

So Moon gave Bush a million and he gave them back $450k?

Ha! silly Korean ..... Bush beat him on that one! I beat he couldn't get away with that with ole' Ceflo Dollar 'can I get a holla'!

Besides, I thought McCain-Foundgold was supposed to stop all that foolishness? No?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

If Bush had a pair (as if) he would pardon him today.

I would love to see him rub Fitzgerald's nose it.

What a dolt.

So, I guess Armitage gets a free pass huh?

Gee, wasn't there an "outing" or something?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Mixer, I'd like to know your opinion on what really happened in the Plame affair. I'm serious--I really don't know much about it and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I get the impression that Scooter was probably just following orders, and then took the fall for Cheney, but that's just an impression. What are your thoughts?

------------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

JeffC and Mixer on Plame and Reid

But just so you know- I do NOT think Plame was covert which makes it all a mute point. I actually conceeded the point to Jeff just so I could debate the issue.

Here is some of why I do NOT think Plame was covert.

The woman who wrote the law, Victoria Toensing, can be seen here trying to explain the Democrat Henry Waxman why there was ‘NO OUTING’ under the Identity Protection Act. By the way, in this statement Waxman tried to infer that a General told him Plame was covert. This is a lie according to the General. He said he NEVER said Plame was a covert agent under the Identities Protection Act (which again, was written by Victoria Toensing).

_________________________________________________________________

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

But just so you know- I do NOT think Plame was covert which makes it all a mute point. I actually conceded the point to Jeff just so I could debate the issue.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

You think it was Richard Armitage who leaked it. Following your links, I came across this Newsweek article that points the finger at Armitage:
"The Man Who Said Too Much" I assume you've already read it, but I hadn't.
Interesting!

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

...it really wasn't 'news' according to many accounts.

I would also suggest you take a look at the video link aboveto see why I do not think even Armitage committed a crime.

Fitzgerald knew from day one about Armitage by the way and investigated anyway. He wasted millions.

Also, several witnesses stated that is was 'common knowledge on the cocktail circuit' that Plame was CIA.

Under the Identity Protection Act definition, she wasn't even 'covert'. No one has been or will be prosecuted for her alleged 'outing'. Nor will she be prosecuted for lying to the House while under oath.

Case closed.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Was that in Novak's original column, he said that TWO administration officials told him that Plame was a CIA agent. That's what Fitz was investigating. He didn't know who the second official was.

Another thing Mixer hasn't explained is, if Plame was not covert, why did the CIA demand the investigation that started it all? Some grand conspiracy theory where the CIA is out to get the President?

What else Mixer has not explained is that in spite of the fact that the CIA issued an official document to a Federal court stating that in 2002 Valerie was working at the CIA and that she had taken 10 trips to seven different countries for the CIA under NOC status, she was still somehow not covert under the statute.

What else Mixer has not explained is what basis he has for deciding that Plame was not covert even though the CIA filed a document in Federal court which states, “At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 June 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.”

Finally, Mixer has not explained why Victoria Toensing’s interpretation of the law, in which she claimed that someone had to “live outside the United States” to be considered to be covert, is credible, when that qualification is NOT in the law.

Could it be.................... partisan politics?

And!!!

The case is not entirely closed yet. We still have the civil suit filed by the Wilson's to look forward to. Hopefully, we'll get Rove, Scooter and Cheney under oath to clear up the whole outing issue.

I will let the woman who actually wrote the Identities Protection Act speak for herself: I'll report - YOU decide Ha! I love that.

The woman who wrote the law, Victoria Toensing, can be seen here trying to explain to Democrat Henry Waxman why there was ‘NO OUTING’ under the Identity Protection Act. I understand her frustration. Some people just don't want to hear the truth. The Identities Protection Act was written by no other than - you guessed it- Victoria Toensing! Imagine that.

Even if an 'outing' had accured, the first source it comes from is the 'outer'. In this case, that would be Richard Armitage. The 'second' of the two sources Jeff selectively hangs his hat on, would be a 'confirming' source. Now, in the later (Jeff calls the 'redacted') columns, Novak appropriately uses the 'singular' when referring to the 'source' of his knowledge of Plame's identity. This source, confirmed by both Novak as well as the source, was Richard Armitage.

Here's a good summary on the whole fiasco:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

So, if Novak was such a great source that Jeff has all of his proverbial eggs in his one printed basket (multiple sources outing a single person, Plame) then I must ask, was this infallible source, Novak, right the first time and wrong the second and beyond, or right the second and beyond when he said a single source and wrong the first time. (So much for Novak.)

Let's try using common sense: IF one is ‘OUTED’, isn't the 'outing' done by the first person you hear the 'news' from? I say, YES. Jeff, apparently, says 'No'.

Now, perhaps, had there actually been an outing, multiple ‘sources’ could have been on the phone ‘simultaneously’ and speaking in ‘stereo’, told Novak about Plame. (This is unlikely and contrary to what Novak, Armitage, and Libby have all said.)

And finally, (and this is my final word on a CLOSED investigation and court case):

Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything in civil court.

That does not change the fact that this case, under the incompetent bumbling of Fitzgerald was indeed concluded, closed, finito, over and has been since 2005.

Bonus:

Why liberals are still bring up this diversion:

Democrats provide headlines for Al Jazeera

And:

National Security Advisors Steals and Destroys Documents Related To 9-11-2001

Everyone Knew it Was Armitage all Along anyway

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

The first of your two final arguments is that Plame was not covert because Victoria Toensing said she wasn’t and she should know since she worked on the legislation when she was an aide to Barry Goldwater.

In Victoria Toensing’s editorial in the Washington Post she says this:

“At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country.”

The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?

Had this statement been true or in any way accurate, it would have bolstered your case. However, as people can read in the actual law, it explicitly does not limit being a covert agent in any way, shape or form to the requirement that: It means permanent assignment in a foreign country.

Here is the actual law again, explicitly refuting Victoria Toensing’s contention:

(4) The term "covert agent" means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

Ms. Toensing also wrote another opinion piece for the Washington Post in which she said: “On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there.”

Trial in Error

You would reasonably think that this was a very good suggestion. And in fact, it was. Fitzgerald did ask the CIA. We now know that not only did Fitzgerald ask the CIA but that the official response from the CIA, declassified just last week, was entered into the trial testimony as Exhibit A. Here is what it says:

“At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 June 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.”

Exhibit A

Here is the statement from the Director of the CIA in the opening statement of the Congressional investigation:

“Accordingly, the director of Central Intelligence, General Michael Hayden, stated for the public record: “During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson [Plame] was under cover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.”

Here is Plame’s sworn testimony under oath:

“In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter-proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction program. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence. I loved my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer, and I was dedicated to this work.”

But Victoria Toensing said she was not covert and somehow this outweighs the sworn testimony of the Director of the CIA, the CIA’s official position on her employment, Plame’s sworn testimony and the actual law on the books.

Your second point that Plame could not be outed by twice by two sources since the second source would be a “confirming source” to Novak is logically true. However Novak’s only relevance to the investigation is that he initially reported more than one leaker from the administration. Other than confirming that there were leakers besides Armitage, whatever else Novak said is irrelevant to any limitation in Fitzgerald’s mandate to investigate the leaks. Knowing from Novak that Armitage was one of the leakers, and even knowing Novak’s second source, was clearly not the end of Fitzgerald’s investigation as required by the original mandate naming Fitzgerald as Special Prosecutor and as revealed by the subsequent investigation.

I am sorry that you are giving up the argument Mixer, although given the total lack of supporting evidence, I can fully understand why.

I hope we can both agree that it was about time for the Justice Department to get off the stick and finally, at long last, indict William Jefferson!

And finally, would you please wash your car again and park your motorcycle outside. I didn’t get any rain.

Peace!

The way you present it the law looks pretty clear-cut, Jeff. But if Plame was ‘outed’ by someone - Libby or anyone else - why wasn’t anyone charged with that crime? Because of that rascally Carl Rove? Cheney threatened to take Fitzgerald hunting? Fitzgerald is a right-wing political hack? Or perhaps could it be that no one was charged because that crime did not occur?

“Throughout Mr. Libby's prosecution, Mr. Fitzgerald insisted it made no difference to the case whether CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover. At one pre-trial hearing, he went so far as to argue it would make no difference to the case "if [Ms. Wilson] turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee." He also objected to defense requests for documents concerning her status, insisting this was a perjury trial, not a trial about leaking classified information.” WSJ

Maximus

If we can't prove someone outed her, then we just have to catch them in a lie, which we did.
It is the same stuff we have used for a hundred years nearly with mobsters and white collar criminals; get them for lying or tax evasion if you can't get them for pulling the trigger or extortion.
They still needed to be "got."

Hello again my friend. Don't fall for the diversion from the real criminals - but for a little fun, would you like to see how a Democrat functions on a committee?

Pay particular notice to how well Waxman listens to Ms. Toensing's answers. After all, she did write the law on the subject at hand. You can see that an unbiased Waxman, head of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, (you know, high prescription drug prices, high prices of toilet seats in the capital building, etc.) is truly searching for information from the experts.

In fact, this little clip begins with Waxman explaining that he would love to ask questions - but he doesn't have time.

Enjoy the clip Maximus.

Teaser:

See Item 'D' The definition of abroad.

"In the CIA's eyes, the revelation of Plame's name in any context, whether she was stationed here or abroad, gave away a national security secret that could have dangerous repercussions. When Novak's column unmasking her as a CIA operative was published on July 14, 2003, the CIA general counsel's office automatically sent a routine report to the Justice Department that there had been an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

As part of normal procedures, the agency made a preliminary damage assessment and then sent a required follow-up report to Justice. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft decided to open a criminal investigation but three months later recused himself because the probe led into the White House. Patrick J. Fitgerald, the U.S. attorney for northern Illinois, became special counsel and began to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."

In February 2004, after reviewing what the FBI had, Fitzgerald widened his investigation to include "any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure," plus any efforts to obstruct the probe.

* * *

Some news stories created initial confusion over Plame's status by suggesting that disclosure of her name and employment may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That law, passed in response to disclosure of the names of CIA officers serving overseas by former CIA employee Philip Agee, made it a crime to disclose the names of "covert agents," which the act narrowly defined as those serving overseas or who had served as such in the previous five years.

"Covert agent" is not a label actually used within the agency for its employees, according to former senior CIA officials."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031502448_pf.html
____________________________________________________________________
Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

If I didn’t know better, I would think that Waxman had already made up his mind on the matter. It was almost like he didn’t really care much about the law, or anyone’s testimony, or any other facts.

Maximus

A close minded liberal? No way....come on man. Haven't you clicked on the link at the bottom of my blogs? Liberals change their minds frequently.

Click below to read how your favorite liberal has changed his or her mind:
Democrats on Iraq

That poll is all it would take and Waxman and every other democrat would be tripping all over themselves to kiss her butt.

Maximus

I saw the Waxman video. Thanks or posting it because I had missed it and it was very entertaining. I had seen the transcript but the video was much better. However, let us not fool people to think the Ms. Toensing was not allowed to speak her piece. The R's gave her lots of time.

"Covert agent" is not ever used at the CIA. Hmmm… guess that is why they wrote that into the law like they did.

63% trust Toensing! I have to say I am amazed! In fact astonished!! I ain't saying it's not true because I admit I have nothing to refute it except common sense. However, unless the poll was restricted to the jurors at the trial, I would be absolutely AMAZED if you could find a group of people anywhere who were randomly selected whereby 63% could even identify who Ms. Toensing was. In fact, given a thousand people, I would be willing to bet that the percentage of them that could identify Toensing would be less than the percentage of Republican Presidential candidates who believe in evolution. (Admittedly not a hard mark to beat.)

I'm feeling the campaign is going to be less depressing that I thought after watching the Republican debate. I have to say though, I am shocked, SHOCKED! that these people are allowed to say those awful things about our President while he is overseas. It is truely shameful. Despicable. The lack of respect... I am speechless! They must all be terrorist lovers, that's the only explanation I can come up with. After all, your either with him or against him.

Yes, after watching the debate, I'm definately feeling pretty good about the campaign. The results may not be so good, but I'm really, really feeling that I'm going to enjoy the campaign more that you will.

Lots of interesting stuff to blog about in the future. I'm savoring it while I can before the Dems ritually shoot themselves and self destruct in a typical psychotic frenzy. Nevertheless, right now, it's sweet!

Well, from the Newsweek account, Armitage inadvertently let it slip out during an interview with Robert Novak. Lack of intent would make it a misdemeanor at most, regardless of whether it had slipped out as "common knowledge" previously. Lord knows that most of us with security clearances have probably had the occasional slip of the tongue. (hopefully not to a reporter or an enemy agent) That's not the same as deliberately leaking classified info for political gain.

Well, I have to agree with you on this one.

By the way, I'll be on vacation for the next 10 days or so, babysitting my granddaughter, so if nobody hears from me, that's why.

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

For a self proclaimed Independent liberal you are one alright dude. Thanks for being open minded on the issues. Your opposition and writings are well thought out reasonable.

Have a great time with that granddaughter and your time away. Catch you down the road a bit.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

That's the nicest thing I've heard all day! See you later!

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

Clinton, check
Sandy Berger, check
Richard Armitage, check
William Jefferson - my bad - too early.

Oh, here they are:

Neil Ainley (guilty plea),
Roger Altman (resigned under cloud),
Les Aspin (resigned in disgust),
Bruce Babbitt (IC investigation),
Zoe Baird (nomination failed),
Robert Bennett (co-defendant in sexual harassment suit),
Ronald H. Blackley (convicted - Espy),
Herby Branscum (mistrial),
Michael A. Brown (convicted),
Michael's dad Ron Brown (died under investigation),
Jorge Cabrera (convicted),
Pierre Chambrin (WH chef, fired & bribed $37k to keep quiet),
Gin F. J. Chen (5th plea),
Ming Chen (fled country),
Yi Chu (5th plea - granted immunity),
Yue Chu (5th plea - granted immunity),
Johnny Chung (guilty plea),
Henry Cisneros (indicted),
Arthur Coia (under investigation),
Gilbert Colon (5th plea),
Bettie Currie (subpoenaed),
Billy Dale (persecuted by Clintons, acquitted),
Michael deVegter (indicted),
Richard Douglas (guilty plea - Espy),
Mike Espy (indicted),
Eugene Fitzhugh (guilty plea),
Dr. Henry Foster Jr. (nomination failed),
Manlin Foung (5th plea - granted immunity),
Yogesh Ghandi (5th plea),
Lani Guinier (nomination failed),
David Hale (guilty plea),
John Haley (indicted-fraud),
Jean Hanson (resigned under cloud),
Alexis Herman (under investigation),
Philip B. Heymann (resigned in disgust),
Nolanda S. Hill (indicted - singing),
Robert Hill (mistrial),
Man Ho (5th plea - granted immunity),
Maria Hsia (indicted),
Jie Su Hsiao (5th plea),
Judy Hsu (5th plea),
Jen Chin Hsueh (5th plea),
Hueutsan Huang (5th plea - granted immunity),
Jane Huang (5th plea),
John Huang (5th plea),
Zie Pan Huang (5th plea - granted immunity),
Webster Hubbell (convicted),
Steven Hwang (5th plea),
Woody Hwang (5th plea),
Harold Ickes (under IC investigation),
Charles Intriago (5th plea),
Bin Yueh Jeng (5th plea),
Mark Jimenez (5th plea),
Linda Jones (guilty plea - Cisneros),
Pauline Kanchanalak (fled country),
Duangnet Kronenberg (5th plea),
Larry Kuca (guilty plea),
Joseph Landon (5th plea - granted immunity),
Nathan Landow (under IC investigation),
Dan Lasater (convicted),
Kent Law (granted immunity),
John H.K. Lee (fled country),
Na-chi "Nancy" Lee (5th plea - granted immunity),
Siuw Moi Lian (5th plea - granted immunity),
Hsiu Chu Lin (5th plea),
Mike Lin (5th plea),
Bruce Lindsey (unindicted co-conspirator),
Craig Livingstone (resigned under cloud),
Nora and Gene Lum (guilty pleas),
daughter Trisha Lum (guilty plea),
Felix Ma (fled country),
William Marks (guilty plea),
Charles Matthews (guilty plea),
Terence McAuliffe (guilty plea),
James McDougal (convicted, died in prison),
Susan McDougal (convicted),
Mark Middleton (5th plea),
Dick Morris (resigned under cloud),
Jere Nash (guilty plea - Teamsters),
Tom Nastos (under investigation),
Bernard Nussbaum (IC investigation),
Seow Fong Ooi (5th plea),
Robert Palmer (guilty plea),
Antonio Pan (fled country),
Larry Patterson (co-defendant),
Federico Pena, Roger Perry,
Charles Ruff (under investigation),
Archie Schaffer (indicted - Tyson),
Agus Setiawan (fled country),
Jou Sheng (5th plea),
Hsin Chen Shih (5th plea),
Man Ya Shih (5th plea - granted immunity),
Ted Sieong (fled country),
Smith Barney Inc. ($1M civil fine - Espy),
Stephen Smith (guilty plea),
Jane Dewi Tahir (5th plea),
Roger Tamraz (fugitive - Lebanese embezzlement),
Subandi Tanuwidjaja (fled country),
Dewi Tirto (fled country),
Susan Thomases (under IC investigation),
Charlie Trie (indicted),
Linda Tripp, Hsiu Luan Tseng (5th plea),
Jim Guy Tucker (convicted),
Tyson Foods Inc. (guilty plea - Espy),
Chris Wade (guilty plea),
Chi Rung Wang (5th plea),
David Wang (5th plea - granted immunity),
Seth Ward (under IC investigation),
David Watson (fired),
Clifton Wharton (resigned in disgust),
Jack L. Williams (convicted - Tyson),
Maggie Williams (under IC investigation),
Arief Wiriandinata (fled country),
Soraya Wiriadinata (fled country),
Larry Wong (5th plea - granted immunity),
Michael Woo (under investigation),
Irene Wu (5th plea - granted immunity),
Shu Jen Wu (5th plea - granted immunity),
Eric Wynn (convicted),
Yumei Yang (5th plea),
Keshi Zhan (5th plea - granted immunity).

There you go. There's a couple more to place odds on being brought up.

By the way, what are the odds that William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson will be convicted on some of those 16 charges of "a pervasive pattern of self dealings, bribery and corruption"?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Good Work!!

Indicted Lawmaker Always Fond of Cash

A 16-count indictment on racketeering and bribery charges that could put him in prison the rest of his life!!!!

Yeah, the Scum Democrats are real paragons of virtue.

Typical Liberal -

Look at what the Republicans do, but don't pay any attention to the corruption in the Democrat party!!

I assume you are referring to Congressman William Jefferson, boy?

He's been indicted and if he's convicted I'll be happy to see him go as well! Maybe he and Gonzales can share a cell!

Libby's been convicted, and now he has to pay the price for lying under oath. What part of "convicted" do you not understand, boy?

______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

You're comparing a trumped up lying conviction to years of corruption by William Jefferson? What part of "life in prison" do you not understand, rice boy?

FYI, Gonzales has not been indicted. Just wishful thinking on your part.

I'm glad Scooter is going to jail.

I also think Clinton should have gone to jail for lying under oath.

And yes, I think Sandy Berger should be in jail for stealing secret documents and destroying them.

Oh, Armitage, yes, he should be in jail too for delaying his confession that he leaked the Valarie Plame information.

Oh, and Valarie Plame should be in jail too- she lied under oath as well.

Lying under oath is a very bad thing and we need to send anyone and everyone who does it to jail every time.

That's my jail list for today. For now. I think.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

"Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up: Why It Matters" (6/4/07)

(Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and Author of The Rule of Law in America.)

Conclusion

What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.

Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.

Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.

The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.

The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .

Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.

Because, in truth, it could affect us all.

If you can come up with a reasonable explanation why the Bush Justice Department has so miserably failed in the prosecution of Berger, I'd be happy to hear your reasoning.

I’m not sure how to interpret “if” and “reasonable” in light of your assessment of my “profound ignorance” and “lack of original thought processes.” Although I’m “almost completely clueless,” the following statement sums up my impression of President Bush’s relationship with former President Clinton:

How does President Bush feel about the Rich pardon inquiries?

Bush has been quoted as saying he thinks "it's time to move on," and by all accounts has little interest in pursuing any investigation that keeps his predecessor in the national spotlight.

______________________________

Originally fined $10,000 (a fine that was deemed “inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense,” which was then was increased to $50,000 by the judge) and a loss of his security clearance for only three years, Berger definitely shows that the justice system can turn a blind eye to powerful and influential people. Two years later he voluntarily relinquished his law license, no real punishment because “I have not [practiced law] for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession.” His true motive for relinquishing his law license was to avoid cross-examination regarding details of his theft. "He also was ordered to undergo a polygraph test if asked -- although the Justice Department has declined to administer the test despite urging by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform." [Surely lends credibility to Pelosi's claim about Democrats' high ethical standards -- Ha! -- and my view of the DOJ.]

Scooter Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation. Berger admits to lying and his actions undoubtedly obstructed investigations. The former is a convicted felon; the latter was allowed to plead guilty to insignificant misdemeanor charges, a mere “slap on the wrist.”

______________________________

"Neither Prison Nor Pardon: Justice in the Libby Case Lies With Bush's Third Option"

“Neither vindication of the rule of law nor any other aspect of the public interest requires that Libby go to prison. He is by no stretch a danger to the community, as 'danger' is commonly understood. He did not commit his crime out of greed or personal malice. Nor is his life one that bespeaks a criminal turn of mind. To the contrary, as letters to the court on his behalf overwhelmingly established, he has been a contributor to his community and his country. And whether or not we agree, we cannot dismiss out of hand the notion that Libby thought he was serving his country by his overall conduct in this episode, specifically by letting it be known, truthfully, that it was not the White House that tapped Joseph Wilson to look into whether Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Niger.

“A sense of proportionality argues in favor of eliminating Libby's prison term. This was an unusually harsh sentence for a first offender convicted of a nonviolent and non-drug-related crime. Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, was not sentenced to prison for sneaking documents out of the National Archives, destroying them and then lying to investigators. For his actions, Berger received no jail time, a fine one-fifth of that imposed on Libby and 100 hours of community service.

“To pardon Scooter Libby would not be consistent with the imperative that the mechanisms of law be able to demand, and receive, the truth. But to leave the sentence undisturbed would be an injustice to a person who, though guilty in this instance, is not what most people would, or should, think of as a criminal. Commutation offers a middle ground. Unlike a pardon, commuting the prison sentence would not erase the conviction. It would leave Libby with the disabilities of a convicted felon [consequences that Berger will not face] — no small matter for a lawyer and public figure. But commutation would alleviate the harshest, and unnecessary, aspects of the sentence. A partial commutation would send the message that we insist on being truthful, but in the name of a justice that still cares about individual circumstances, we will not insist on being vindictive.”

The writer [William Otis], a former federal prosecutor, was a member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on the Sentencing Guidelines under administrations of both parties. He was special counsel for President George H.W. Bush.

______________________________

"If You're Going to Charge Scooter, Then What About These Guys?" by Victoria Toensing

"There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere 'he said, he said' evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.

"If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment."

______________________________

TOENSING: Classified is a very different legal term and he's a good enough lawyer [Fitzgerald] to know that. And if you give the identity of a classified person, it doesn't mean diddly squat under the law. It has to be a cover agent. That's why we wrote the law in 1982, because there was this legal gap. People were exposing agents abroad and we didn't have a law to cover it.

______________________________

TOENSING: The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

TOENSING: The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

TOENSING: Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.

______________________________

"Investigate the CIA"

Toensing: Plame's "'outing' was the result of either incompetence or an effort to undermine the White House." (2005)

"When the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was being negotiated, Senate Select Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was adamant: If the CIA desired a law making it illegal to expose one of its deep cover employees, then the agency must do a much better job of protecting their cover. That is why a criterion for any prosecution under the act is that the government was taking 'affirmative measures' to conceal the protected person's relationship to the intelligence agency. Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name."

"The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which."
______________________________

"While Chief Counsel for Senator Barry Goldwater, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1981-1984, Toensing was instrumental in winning passage of two important bills: (1) to protect the identities of intelligence agents and (2) to protect certain classified information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

______________________________

I guess all of the reading that I've done, as well as commentary that I've heard, (which, I'm sure, is not nearly as much reading as you have done, but then, who has) further contributes to the "screwiness of [my] misunderstanding of the whole affair."

I have read most of the posts here and find everyone (well, almost) quite informed.

I've posted the quotes for those who don't care to read all of the articles. Toensing emphasizes the precise definition under the law and, to me, makes a good case. Having dealt with lawyers (most really don't know the meaning of the word is because of the ability that they have to twist any testimony), I distrust the basis of Libby's trial. It seems like a political "witch-hunt," and there are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do who have come to this conclusion also. If there had not been so much political bickering (an understatement) before this began, then I might find the investigation more credible. I can't really find a "presumption of innocence" from the beginning. It reminds me of the fable about the little boy who always cried "wolf." If Democrats want to be believed by those outside their party, then they should rein in their vitriol and limit their myriads of charges. Also, desiring to cleanse their own party would help their image.

Yes, Bush has “little interest in pursuing any investigation that keeps his predecessor in the national spotlight.” Frankly, I don’t blame him. There is nothing he can do about it and what is the point of an investigation? It is perfectly legitimate to hang the political consequences around Clinton’s neck, but I am sure you will agree that should be for someone else to do, not President Bush.

If you look at my postings here, I think that we agree that Berger got off to lightly and Libby’s sentence was too harsh. I think Berger should have served some time and that Libby will get a reduction in appeal.

I think Bush will eventually pardon him (and accept the political consequences.) Ironically, it may actually improve his ratings with conservatives. If I were President Bush, I would pardon Paris Hilton and then, five minutes later, Libby. It would be months before anyone noticed the Libby pardon.

I had read the Victoria Toensing article, “What about these guys?” Suits me to investigate them all, although I doubt it will happen. Plame’s lawsuit against them may result in some more sworn testimony and may shed more light on the matter.

As you know, I simply disagree with Toensing when she says it requires an agent to reside outside the country to be considered covert. She has said that several times and that provision is simply not in the law which I have posted several times. She says it, I disagree. The CIA’s official statement as Exhibit A in the trial disagrees with Toensing. The new director of the CIA in a statement to Waxman’s committee disagrees with Toensing. The CIA was the agency which originally filed the complaint. Do you think that the CIA and Director’s Hayden and Tenet do not know what a covert agent is?

I disagree when you say, “I distrust the basis of Libby's trial. It seems like a political "witch-hunt,…… If Democrats want to be believed by those outside their party, then they should rein in their vitriol and limit their myriads of charges…”

This totally ignores the fact that Libby was prosecuted by the Republican Special Prosecutor appointed by the Republican controlled Justice Department in a court with a Judge appointed by Bush 41. Waxman held hearings but his committee was not the one charging or prosecuting Libby. How this can be construed as a Democratic witch-hunt I can’t understand.

Yes, Bush has “little interest in pursuing any investigation that keeps his predecessor in the national spotlight.” Frankly, I don’t blame him. There is nothing he can do about it and what is the point of an investigation? It is perfectly legitimate to hang the political consequences around Clinton’s neck, but I am sure you will agree that should be for someone else to do, not President Bush.

If you look at my postings here, I think that we agree that Berger got off to lightly and Libby’s sentence was too harsh. I think Berger should have served some time and that Libby will get a reduction in appeal.

I think Bush will eventually pardon him (and accept the political consequences.) Ironically, it may actually improve his ratings with conservatives. If I were President Bush, I would pardon Paris Hilton and then, five minutes later, Libby. It would be months before anyone noticed the Libby pardon.

I had read the Victoria Toensing article, “What about these guys?” Suits me to investigate them all, although I doubt it will happen. Plame’s lawsuit against them may result in some more sworn testimony and may shed more light on the matter.

As you know, I simply disagree with Toensing when she says it requires an agent to reside outside the country to be considered covert. She has said that several times and that provision is simply not in the law which I have posted several times. She says it, I disagree. The CIA’s official statement as Exhibit A in the trial disagrees with Toensing. The new director of the CIA in a statement to Waxman’s committee disagrees with Toensing. The CIA was the agency which originally filed the complaint. Do you think that the CIA and Director’s Hayden and Tenet do not know what a covert agent is?

I disagree when you say, “I distrust the basis of Libby's trial. It seems like a political "witch-hunt,…… If Democrats want to be believed by those outside their party, then they should rein in their vitriol and limit their myriads of charges…”

This totally ignores the fact that Libby was prosecuted by the Republican Special Prosecutor appointed by the Republican controlled Justice Department in a court with a Judge appointed by Bush 41. Waxman held hearings but his committee was not the one charging or prosecuting Libby. How this can be construed as a Democratic witch-hunt I can’t understand.

PS, I was mad about your article about torture. Forget it. You are not really clueless.

"If I were President Bush, I would pardon Paris Hilton and then, five minutes later, Libby. It would be months before anyone noticed the Libby pardon."

I'd qualify that with anyone OUTSIDE of D.C. From what I hear, there's something in the water there that changes almost everyone who works in the federal government.

As far as my opinion about the DOJ and special prosecutors, I've expressed my opinion about Martha Stewart in a post to Mixer.

I've not read (that I remember) that Toensing says the law "requires an agent to reside outside the country to be considered covert," but I'll look back through all the posts here. I like reading both sides.

"I think that we agree that Berger got off to lightly and Libby’s sentence was too harsh. I think Berger should have served some time and that Libby will get a reduction in appeal." -- Fair and balanced, for someone born political. -- That's a joke

A great blog on Berger Denise.

Have you noticed how feverishly Jeff and the left want to talk about ANYTHING else? Especially the 'outing' of a 'covert' CIA operative - she drove in and out of Langley every day for the last 6 years for goshes sake ... but then again, maybe she wore shades!

They are even willing to throw William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson to the wolves to avoid explaining what happened in the Berger case.

Here we have a former National Security Adviser - yep, you heard it - NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER - admits to and is found guilty of stealing documents by stuffing them in his underwear and socks from the National Archives and then destroying some of the most highly sensitive documents in America's possession prior to the 911 committee's meetings on them - documents related to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the Democrats want to talk about Valarie, Scooter, and a closed investigation.

Gee - I wonder why?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

What has Jefferson got to do with Berger?

I think Berger should be in jail! Stealing classified documents and destroying them is a terrible crime! You have included me in that broad umbrella of "Democrats" when I am out standing in the rain! (Metaphorically speaking. Is your motorcycle outside tonight?) I have absolutely no sympathy at all for him.

And Jefferson? What a disgrace! If the charges are true, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, I say sentence him to the 265 years he is up for. He disgraces the party. Nothing would please me more than getting this type of sleaze out. Really and truly.

That is one of the differences here. I am more than willing to identify and reject the lawbreakers in my party whereas y'all are unwilling to admit that the top people in your party are criminals even after they have been convicted by prosecutors of your own party, who were appointed by the Justice Department of your own party and sentenced by a judge of your own party.

I am more than willing to discuss it. If I have made any aspect of my feelings about either Berger of Jefferson unclear, please feel free to ask and I will be more than happy to address the subject.

think that covert agents can be covert one day and not the next, if they go to work. It is not necessary for them to hide in Belarus forever covered up with a blanket to be covert. People they sent packing ten years ago may knock them off if they know who they are. Think people. What on earth purpose did any of those administration people and Novak have to gain by telling on her? To take the pressure off the African yellow-cake lie, that is why.
Have any of you ever worked covertly?

That's just mis-direction and wishful thinking on your part, Mix.

I invite you to prove me wrong.
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

In her sworn testimony, under oath, before the House, Mrs. Wilson said flatly, “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him.”

She told the House committee that a 2004 Senate report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong.

In particular, Mrs. Wilson pointed to a February 12, 2002, memo she had written, which the Senate said showed that she had suggested her husband for the trip, and claimed that the Senate had taken the memo “out of context” to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”
The 2004 Senate report to which Mrs. Wilson referred had quoted a brief excerpt from her memo.
In the new report, Sen. Bond publishes the whole thing, (I have it below) and it seems to indicate clearly that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip.
The memo was occasioned by a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium.
The report had been circulating in the intelligence community for a week by February 12, and Mrs. Wilson headlined her memo, “Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash.”
She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002.

A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

Here you go

A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That "doesn't square" with Plame's March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband's name, Bond told USA TODAY.

Plame has "always been very consistent that she is not the person responsible for sending Joe Wilson" to Africa, said Melanie Sloan, Plame's attorney.

Here is Plame's memo:

Plame's Memo

“The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

More of the memo….

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and >strong>I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.”

So, did she suggest him bas?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Plame and the CIA both say that someone else selected her husband and the CIA disputes the accuracy of the 2002 memo. The memo known as the “INR memo” was allegedly written by a person that the CIA says could not have been present at the meeting.

The Washington Post on December 26, 2003:

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it. CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

From Newsday:

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover

The Los Angeles Times reported on July 15, 2004, that: “An unnamed CIA official confirmed that Plame was not responsible for the CIA's decision to send Wilson to Niger, saying: "Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going. ... They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes."

However I am still not convinced that the INR memo was wrong. After all it was first released by one of the most knowledgeable and well connected reporters covering the White House at the time, J.D. Guckert. Yes, Guckert himself, aka Jeff Gannon, the auto body shop office manager and gay prostitute hired by the RNC to pose as a reporter at the WH and channel Karl Rove. I do wonder how he got his hands on the then classified document though.

As to why Plame has not been charged with perjury by the Republican prosecutor and why the Republican judge has not had her investigated:

Why Valerie will not be charged

Ah, "Plame's" memo.

The dubious source of "Plame's" memo comes from the highly partisan Republican response to the intelligence report that was released last Friday. This report (actually an appendix to the report) is 10 whiny pages of Republican revisionism with two essential talking points: Bush is not to blame, and the Wilsons are meanies.

It was produced by partisan hack senators Orrin Hatch and Kit Bond, two guys who looked especially stupid after Joseph Wilson's testimony. This is nothing more than shrill political payback.

Now, I do NOT believe this memo is authentic, and I'll tell you why.

Everything the *CIA* redacts (for national security) the put the word "redacted" in brackets, and sometimes put an additional non-classified explanation.

What the oh-so-clever Republican partisan hacks did was to FURTHER "black out" information that was not helpful to their cause. So THEY blacked out a sentence and inserted "(a separate Niger matter)". This fundamentally changes the meaning of the memo. It makes Plame appear to be suggesting her husband when actually she's replying to someone else who had previously suggested her husband.

205 newspapers ignored this cheesy partisan smear attempt. Only Byron York at the National Review (an EDITORIAL, not a news article) commented on it....but of course, to the rightwingers, conjecture is all you need to pass judgement. The Freepers accept this as Gospel, and now you're doing the same.

I sincerely doubt that anyone in their right mind would call this obviously fabricated nonsense "perjury". You'll have to do better than this claptrap, Mix!
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

"It was produced by partisan hack senators Orrin Hatch and Kit Bond..."

YIKES!

Seems like those two would be in a bit of trouble if that were true... but hey, I'm a partisan hack too so what do I know?

Bonus:

Victoria Toensing, can be seen here trying to explain to Democrat Henry Waxman why there was ‘NO OUTING’ under the Identities Protection Act (which again, was written by none other than - you guessed it - Victoria Toensing).

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Republicans NEVER fabricate evidence presented to a Grand Jury...unless they think they could get away with it, of course. In any event, that would just be wrong.

No, what Senators Bond and Hatch did was some creative editing of the evidence AFTER it was presented to the Grand Jury, then slipped it into the Intelligence report appendix and further "explained" what it all meant.

You'll forgive me if I don't click on your second link. It goes to Michelle Malkin's site and I refuse to visit her (or any other neo-Nazi) site as a matter of principle. Malkin endorses concentration camps, so she is a Nazi in my view.

Besides, my public school education taught me that Congress wrote laws, not partisan hacks like Victoria Toensing. Silly me!
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

Besides, my public school education taught me that Congress wrote laws

Heh I gotta give you credit -- if you know that you are smarter than the majority of the government educated kids. Just take Jaywalking or Hannity's Man on the Street interviews for example.

Congress wrote laws, not partisan hacks like Victoria Toensing. Silly me!

Actually as you should know Congress persons rarely actually write laws. They are written by lobbyists and lawyers (after all, how else do you explain much that legalese in them? ). HOW is Ms. Toensing more of a "partisan hack" than other people that actually write the laws? Hmm?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!

Actually, I was aware that lobbyists and lawyers wrote most of the laws nowadays. As a result, you get some bad laws (the draconian bankruptcy "reform" bill) and some truly horrendous laws (the Military Detainees act, which essentially suspends habeas corpus, one of the primary safeguards in a true democracy).

Having said that, the alternative...having witless fools like Lynn Westmoreland actually writing legislation...is just too horrible to contemplate.

Now then, to Victoria Toensing. Ole Vicky is a partisan hack and has been one for many years. She's spent more time in front of a Faux News camera yammering about Clinton's impeachment and what she REALLY meant by the Intelligence Identity act than she has in a courtroom.

Many, if not most, of her statements are demonstrably false. For example, take her insistence that "resides" and "serves" are synonymous. She has flogged this dead horse continuously as specious reasoning why Plame could not possibly be considered covert, even though "her" law, as written, specifically states otherwise. Excellent writeup here:Whom Should I Believe? Victoria Toensing or My Own Lying Eyes?

It's also worth noting that partisan hack Toensing has a longstanding friendship with one of the prime movers in this treasonous affair, Bob Novak, a fact that is almost never noted when she is on camera preaching to the Faux news ditto-sheep. Naturally, Novak returns the favor, singing her praises on many occasions.
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

and it will be believed.
No one was outed from the CIA, NO ONE, YOU HEAR.
Saddam still had WMD, or he could have made more in a few hundred years.
We did NOT create a country for terrorists, Iraq. Tney already had a couple who bred.
We did not abandon Afghasnistan and Bin Laden, we just temporarily needed the guys and gals in Iraq--5-15 years maybe, we will be back!
We are winning with the "surge," the mission is accomplished.
The latest big lie: Divide Iraq into three related states with Baghdad being the federal city. Now that is real "democracy," which must be spread amongst the Arabs.
Like the wizard of Oz; don't look at that man behind the curtain between Pakistan and Afghanistan, nor the one within Colombia where the bandits live, nor in that country between Pakistan and India--not sure what kind of people they have. Forget Darfur, also, We don't have the troops for such stuff as head choppers and starvers.
Just don't look at that man, he isn't me.

Dollar, did you ever go to "skool"? How about taking a geography class? You said:

nor in that country between Pakistan and India--not sure what kind of people they have

Ignoring the rest of your rant, don't you even know that Pakistan and India are contiguous? There is no "country between"!

Would it be too much to ask to read a map before blurting out something, Dollar?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!

I realize we will never agree on this. I did want you to to see the Waxman/Toensing interview though so here it is 'Malkin free'!

I have to go and get a root canal - seriously - so I'll catch you later. Yuk.

Waxman and Toensing for bas

You can certainly tell they are both lawyers - I'll say that much.

That was a very interesting video. I believe Waxman clearly had the upper hand there ("that's your interpretation...sooo...you're narrowing the scope of your statement so narrowly that your statements are credible but not honest!") but then I'm a partisan hack myself!
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

d

per·ju·ry
Pronunciation[pur-juh-ree]
–noun, plural -ries. Law.
the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

To answer the question you deleted:

No, dollar, it doesn't matter what the reason or topic is. It violates the integrity of the court and our judicial system. Anyone who lies to the court, under oath, at any time, should go to jail (but seldom does).

Second point: it's 'lying' not 'lieing'.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

d

Okay whoever had 42 minutes on the Clinton reference is the winner!

Seriously, if Gonzales is convicted of lying to Congress I hope you will show the same respect for the rule of law!

I suspect we'll see a great many more perjury convictions in the months ahead, as it appears that Bush administration officials seem singularly incapable of telling the truth!
______________________________________________
The 12 Warning Signs of Fascism

Oh my gosh! I missed that. When bas,?? Yes!! If he is convicted I will call for him to be imprisoned.

So tell me about the indictment!

How many counts?

Where can I find it?

When did it come down?

Wow!

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Are you from the Bronx bas?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed