Monday, October 03, 2005

Treason: The Right-wing's Principle.

Role of Rove, Libby in CIA Leak Case Clearer
Bush and Cheney Aides' Testimony Contradicts Earlier White House Statement

By Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 2, 2005; A05

As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.

With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.

His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.

Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public.

In October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial of their involvement, he said, "That is correct."

What remains a central mystery in the case is whether special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has accumulated evidence during his two-year investigation that any crime was committed. His investigation has White House aides and congressional Republicans on edge as they await Fitzgerald's announcement of an indictment or the conclusion of the probe with no charges. The grand jury is scheduled to expire Oct. 28, and lawyers in the case expect Fitzgerald to signal his intentions as early as this week.

...But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

Lawyers involved in the case interviewed for this report agreed to talk only if their names were not used, citing Fitzgerald's request for secrecy.

One source briefed on Miller's account of conversations with Libby said it is doubtful her testimony would on its own lead to charges against any government officials. But, the source said, her account could establish a piece of a web of actions taken by officials that had an underlying criminal purpose.

Conspiracy cases are viewed by criminal prosecutors as simpler to bring than more straightforward criminal charges, but also trickier to sell to juries. "That would arguably be a close call for a prosecutor, but it could be tried," a veteran Washington criminal attorney with longtime experience in national security cases said yesterday.

Other lawyers in the case surmise Fitzgerald does not have evidence of any crime at all and put Miller in jail simply to get her testimony and finalize the investigation. "Even assuming . . . that somebody decided to answer back a critic, that is politics, not criminal behavior," said one lawyer in the case. This lawyer said the most benign outcome would be Fitzgerald announcing that he completed a thorough investigation, concluded no crime was committed and would not issue a report.

...By July 12, however, both Rove and Libby and perhaps other senior White House officials knew about Wilson's wife's position at the CIA and, according to lawyers familiar with testimony in the probe, used that information with reporters to undermine the significance of Wilson's trip.

Article here>>>

All government officials convicted of this crime should immediately be executed. No more screwing around!


At 10/12/2005 4:42 AM , Blogger Lady Phoenix said...

You know, George Carlin once talked about how he would go about getting rid of drug dealers. He said that we should execute a couple of the bankers that launder the money. See, your every day drug dealer on the street is not afraid to die, so killing him would do no good. But those wealthy bankers with wives and families, they don't want to die. Kill a couple of them and they'd all get a clear idea of what would happen to them if they continued. Something like that, I'm terribly paraphrasing here. But you know, sometimes you have to wonder, what does one have to do to realy get a point across. The people involved in this leak are traitors. Traitors, last I checked, are executed. So, I guess we'll just have to see where it goes. :)

At 10/20/2005 9:54 PM , Blogger halcyon67 said...

First of all, I love George Carlin. Two, they are going down. And I am loving it. They dont' look so moral now.

Now, all they can do is blame it on the non existent liberal media.

What a bunch of doofs

Democrats o6' Victory.

At 10/23/2005 9:38 PM , Blogger James said...

"Democrats o6' Victory"

You know, even with the current state of the politics in this country, you can NEVER declare a victory until the day AFTER the election. In 2000 Al Gore had a pre-victory party, counting his chickens early... he eventually lost. In 2004, John Kerry had a pre-victory party, expecting his votes to come rolling in, he eventually lost. Semantics aside, just because the current administration isn't popular, doesn't mean that you've won an election yet to take place.

Not saying it won't happen... but you never declare victory until you've seen the results to back it up.

At 10/24/2005 9:55 PM , Blogger halcyon67 said...

I was declaring a victory, James. I was merely stating what I hope to happen.

Like Bush and Cheney signs had Bush and Cheney 04', and some of those signs were put up in 03'. Imagine that.

At 11/02/2005 3:24 PM , Blogger James said...

I would say the same thing to anyone projecting a win the year before an election... I think it's premature and a setup for major disapointment provided the election does not go the way you wished...

DURING the actual election (post primary etc.) I see no problem with it.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home