| Gov. Times | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| CNN | Dead wrong: Man attends own funeral after mix-up over body’s ID |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| McClatchy | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Indictments coming this week in Plamegate scandal?
Reuters is reporting that it’s very possible we’ll see indictments laid out this week:
Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers involved in case said on Sunday.
Top administration officials are expected to learn from Fitzgerald as early as Monday whether they will face charges as the prosecutor winds up his nearly two-year investigation, the lawyers said.
Could be wishful thinking on their part, but we’ll know for sure as the week goes on.
As always, check Tom Maguire’s blog on the latest regarding Plamegate. Scroll for his many posts on the subject.
The buzz seems to be more and more that if there are indictments, it won’t be over an alleged intentional outing of a covert agent but instead charges of obstruction, perjury, and/or conspiracy to mishandle classified information. If these types of charges are filed, there are worries within the press about what this could mean in terms of obtaining information in the future from ‘anonymous sources’, the NYTimes reports:
WASHINGTON — There are still lots of real secrets in Washington. But the most secretive White House in modern history has learned the hard way – even while its spokesman reflexively utter the caution, “We don’t talk about intelligence,” or, “Sorry, that’s classified” – that it must reveal a pretty steady stream of secrets all the time.
That is one reason journalists and some government officials are so wary of what might happen next in the C.I.A. leak case, which could conclude with indictments within a week. What began as a narrow case on a specific leak, many fear, has morphed into a broader threat to the way business is done here, a system that often benefits both sides.
The investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a then covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, might end with a broadly defined charge that boils down to divulging secret information, a category that covers not only real secrets, but the daily give and take between officials and journalists.
Reporters worry about a chilling effect, one that would make it even harder to explain what the government is doing. Some government officials say they fear the impact because they know that it is often difficult these days to try to justify a national security decision, or warn of an impending threat, or even complain about some kinds of budget cuts without slipping into classified territory.
Michael Barone has similar thoughts:
True, Rove and Libby did seek to discredit Joseph Wilson — as they should well have done. As the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report in July 2004, just about everything Wilson said publicly about his trip to Niger was untrue. He said that he had discredited reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. But the CIA people to whom he reported concluded that, if anything, he substantiated such reports. He said that he pointed out that certain other intelligence reports were forged. But the forgeries did not appear until eight months after his trip. He said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger. But it was she who recommended him for the trip. And on and on.
In the absence of a violation of the underlying espionage acts, any indictment here arising from the course of the investigation would be, in my view, unjust and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It would also be, as the liberal commentator Jacob Weisberg has pointed out, a long step toward something like the British Official Secrets Act — a precedent that would staunch the flow of information from the government to the press and the people.
The press has been shrieking for Rove’s and Libby’s scalp. If they’re indicted, the administration will be hurt in the short run, but in the long run it will be the press and the people who will suffer.
As a side note, Dick Cheney complained about leaks coming out of Washington back in 2002 – a complaint that strangely did not garner much attention:
According to the congressional panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted two messages on Sept. 10 that may have made reference to the next day’s attacks.
[...]Vice President Dick Cheney complained to lawmakers Thursday about what the administration is calling inappropriate leak of the intercepts to the press. At President Bush’s direction, Cheney called Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “to express the president’s concerns about this inappropriate disclosure” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
“The information that is being provided to these committees is extraordinarily sensitive” Fleischer said. “The selective, inappropriate leaking of snippets of information risks undermining national security, and it risks undermining the promises made to protect this sensitive information.”
Where was the mass outrage over leaks regarding sensitive information at that time? The President was concerned, and the VP was as well, but I don’t recall a heavy press push to find out the who, what, when, where, and why on those leaks, which – as the VP stated – risked undermining our national security. Leaks only seem to be bad to the press when they damage the credibility of press heroes like Joe Wilson.
Related: Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard has written an excellent piece on the chain of events that led to the investigation to begin with. (Hat tip: Jeff Goldstein)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
19 Responses to “Indictments coming this week in Plamegate scandal?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
As I said to those who asked me about the DeLay indictment: “Indicted ain’t convicted”. So few seem to grasp that simple concept…
I am at the point that I just want to see for myself what Fitzgerald will do. No one knows what he is going to do so they fill the pages of the MSM with what they “think”, translated to mean “hope” he will do. If there are indictments to be brought, so be it. That is the easy part. Proving this case will be far tougher for a prosecuter, hence the time this G/J proceeding is taking.
“In the absence of a violation of the underlying espionage acts, any indictment here arising from the course of the investigation would be, in my view, unjust and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
These guys are powerful individuals who endangered innocent and uninvolved intelligence professionals in their attempt to silence a whistleblower. Covering this up from the american people isn’t much better.
Remember, its not the sex, its the lying under oath.
What do you think should happen to those found guilty of perjury, shortz?
shortz, what do you think of Sandy Berger stealing documents by hiding them in his pants and then destroying them? Remember, all he was doing was covering up for Clintionistas who enabled 9/11 to happen and then engaged in a coverup to protect the guilty.
“What do you think should happen to those found guilty of perjury, shortz?”
Punishment. The severity depends on the evil they’re lying about. Blowjobs or national security or Lil’ Kim? I think we can agree on how to rank the severity of those, no?
“shortz, what do you think of Sandy Berger stealing documents by hiding them in his pants and then destroying them? ”
Bad guy. Should be punished.
Oh ok – so you’re apparently ok with a President lying under oath getting off (no pun intended) rather easy as long as it was about sex and not something more serious.
I find that pretty telling – I’m in favor of a President not getting let off the hook easy no matter what lies he told on the stand. It goes without saying that lying under oath, especially when you are the President of the US, is a serious breach of trust. You, OTOH, (and many others who I believe share your viewpoint) don’t seem to share that same standard.
Who are “these guys”. You must be pretty knowledgable to know who “these guys” are. And… you are acting like you KNOW that these guys were “covering this up from the american people”.
Sounds like you have the case wrapped up! You should’ve been doing the investigation. You’d have people in jail whether they were guilty or not.
Calling Wilson a “whistleblower” with the positive indication of someone who nobly told the truth about something is like calling a violent serial rapist a “sex therapist.” Wilson lied about EVERYTHING, every statement he’s made has been a lie, promulgated to attempt to damage the Bush administration, he is a partisan hack of the first magnitude. The fact that the MSM continue to shuffle this under the table and refer to him as a “whistleblower” tells you volumes about the bias and lack of regard for the truth practiced by our so called professional journalists today.
“And… you are acting like you KNOW that these guys were “covering this up from the american people”.”
Thats what they’d be accused of if they lied under oath.
“he is a partisan hack of the first magnitude.”
Who was appointed by Bush. Sr. But that guy had sense.
Again shortz, you wrote, ““These guys are powerful individuals who endangered innocent and uninvolved intelligence professionals in their attempt to silence a whistleblower. Covering this up from the american people isn’t much better.”
You have them convicted already. You have them lying under oath already. Seems you were a fly on the wall in the room? And if you were and came out and spoke you’d need to be indicted and convicted for breaking the law yourself shortz.
“You have them lying under oath already.”
The endagerment is the leak. No one doubts that happened do they?
shortz, the problem we have with you is that you have Rove and Libby convicted of the leak without any evidence presented to this court of opinion. All we have is your bloviation.
My opinion is that Plame and Wilson “leaked” by their party behaviour and bragging about her job long before Wilson’s mouth began flapping to cover up his lies and lazyness.
“shortz, the problem we have with you is that you have Rove and Libby convicted of the leak without any evidence presented to this court of opinion.”
I haven’t mentioned rove or libby.
“I haven’t mentioned rove or libby.”
Oh really? Then who were you talking about below?:
“These guys are powerful individuals who endangered innocent and uninvolved intelligence professionals in their attempt to silence a whistleblower. Covering this up from the american people isn’t much better.”
edited — ST. Technically, you mentioned no one by name, but you referred to powerful people whom you inferred should get it solely because they were powerful and not Democrat union shills.
A Whisleblower? You mean like Linda Tripp? Wasn’t she smeared and financially ruined by the Clinton machine? Or would she not be considered a whistleblower?
“Oh really? Then who were you talking about below?:”
The people who leaked the information that endangered intelligence assets. I don’t know exactly who did it, but I know its people up there. Is there any doubt about that?
Ok, so now you’re not only being deliberately obtuse, but you’re insulting the intelligence of everyone here. I think it’s time for you to take a break from this blog, shortz. People here who are interested in real discussion don’t have time for your nonsense. Dunno what’s going on, because you didn’t debate like this before. Hopefully the break will help.