Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The grand jury delivered the indictment,
The judge hasn't seen fit to dismiss in pre-trial.

Of course the neo-cons are attacking this, because
the trial is bringing all the neo-con dirt out.

What are Bushites doing outing CIA Agents?
What are Bushites doing outing CIA cover companies?

Posted by anonymous at February 3, 2007 01:21 PM

What trial? Hitchens told you that the story went from grand peur to yawn in no time flat.

If there is a trial, then I have a theory that Mona Charen is not on the jury, and that Libby will be convicted. If that does happen, you could always blame the judge for allowing Fitzgerald's low blows, or even the president who appointed the judge.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 01:24 PM

If there is a trial

What cave have you been living in? The trial has been going on all week.

My prediction is a hung jury. There's no case, but there are probably enough jurors who hate Bush that they'll vote to convict anyway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 01:33 PM

There are probably enough jurors who hate Bush that they'll vote to convict anyway.

Yeah, all 12 of them, according to Intrade.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 01:52 PM

Yeah, all 12 of them, according to Intrade.

Oh, you figured out that there actually is a trial going on? Contemplate, for a moment, what else you may not know is going on...

If that's what Intrade thinks, sounds like easy money to me. Libby's lawyers aren't stupid. They'll get (deserved) votes for acquittal.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 01:59 PM

If that's what Intrade thinks, sounds like easy money to me.

Go for it!

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=303938

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 02:22 PM

All I have to say to Anon Moron is Sandy Burger.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 3, 2007 02:26 PM

Wingnut.

Why didn't berger get the book tossed at him?

Why didn't gonzales press for maximum charges?

What was bush afraid of?

Posted by anonymous at February 3, 2007 02:38 PM

The indictment says that Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury.

Just like Martha Stewart did

Posted by at February 3, 2007 04:25 PM

Because Republicans are pussies when it comes to the bare nuckle power at all costs games. Repubs think (mistakenly) that if they play nice with and not push the political nuke buttons that civilized discourse is possible.

It is not and this power at all costs, even at the cost of the nation itself, that is central to the democrats passion, will be the undoing of our country.

Your own posts reflect this in that you are afraid to show yourself while spitting all sorts of vile accusations at others. In 20 years from now, when things are much worse, remember this post, and that you were part of making things worse.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 3, 2007 05:00 PM

Just like Martha Stewart did

Except that Martha Stewart wasn't under oath and didn't lie on behalf of the White House.

Because Republicans are pussies when it comes to the bare nuckle power at all costs games.

Not to hear Newt Gingrich tell it. He said that he was brought down by "cannibals". Are you saying that Republicans may attack each other like piranhas, but they are koala bears when they go after Democrats?

Besides, since when is the Sandy Berger case "the political nuke button"? Whatever he did wrong, it's supposed to be a simple pursuit of justice.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 06:04 PM

Wingo:

If the republicans are pussies, they are your pussies.

After all, you elected them, you turned them over to the
corrupting influence of Jack Abramoff, You turned them
into pussies.

Posted by anonymous at February 3, 2007 06:54 PM

Holy shit this is a fun dialogue. I just tuned in and believe me it is entertaining to read this back and forth, what with it all ending up in puss* talk. The whole trial is I think an irrelevant farce. I can't even remember what happened last week, so how the hell can these folks be expected to remember things years back? Our legal system, good as it if for certain things can take on a life form of its own, harder to get rid of than the chicken flu.

Posted by Offside at February 3, 2007 08:16 PM

Anon moron

So little you know. I actually have visited dozens of congressional offices and the corruption is little different on either side of the aisle. When politicians of any stripe get to Washington it seems that for the most part their sole occupation is to continue there. For every Jack Abramoff there is a Charles Wu (the guy that brought money in sacks to Hillary's first senate run). You know so little and yet you throw accusations around with great abandon.

The choice between the Democrats and Republicans today is like trying to choose between Beavis and Butthead. We need a political party that is as concerned with the state of the nation in fifty years as they are with the state of their pockets in two years. This is what you don't understand about Rand. I was born a Democrat and turned Republican as I so much agreed with Mr. Reagan, one of the great presidents of our land.

George Bush made a tragic decision in the invasion of Iraq, considering it the least of a set of evils that he faced. We forget today, that in 2003 that the French and the Russians (both of whom were being paid off by Saddam we now know) were sponsoring a UN resolution that would have removed the no fly zones and would have removed all sanctions on is regime. At that time he was also paying $25k bounties to suicide bombers in Israel (notice that you don't see them doing that now). Is there any thinking person out there who does not think that, freed of any restrictions, that Saddam would have not reconstituted his pogroms against the Kurds and Shiites? Also, with the Iranian nuke program going, that he would have not restarted his own?

You speak from the shadows from a pathetically shallow position and it shows.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 3, 2007 08:32 PM

All Anonymoron knows is what The Voices tell him.

Posted by McGehee at February 4, 2007 06:45 AM

wingo

so what if the sanctions had ended on iraq.
Oil would be cheaper, they'd have a few more bucks.

So what if Hussein was killing the shiite and Kurds,
Wasn't it reagan who was giving hussein billions
when the kurdswere getting slaughtered?
wasn't it President bush who sat by as Hussein
slaughtered the shiite?

So what if Hussein pays the family of suicide bombers in Israel?
How does that affect me as an american?

Let Iraq start a nuke program, how long before it
bears fruit? a month, a year, a decade?

Posted by anonymous at February 4, 2007 08:26 AM

In hindsight, Saddam should have been removed in 1990 by Bush 41. Remember, the current Iraqi government consists of Shia we left in the lurch in 1990, exactly like Hungary 1956 and the Bay of Pigs. Why Maliki or Hakim or Sistani should be "grateful" to us now is a thought that eludes me.

Saddam removal was all good however I am reminded of a terrible story about a heart transplant where the diseased heart is removed and the surgeons then discover that the replacement heart had not been properly packed in ice.

Saddam regime change is indeed good. However we failed to make sure that there was a viable replacement government to take over afterwards.

And now, the Shia who were murdered and raped for decades by Saddam's Sunni/Baath are patiently waiting for their chance for revenge. Our interests are served by national reconciliation and a multi-sectarian Shia-Sunni-Kurd unity government. But of course neither the Shia nor the Kurds desire that result.

The sandstorm passes but the stars endure.

al-Sadr's father's clan (it is Sadr City after all) survived Saddam with their religion intact. Mookie Sadr (the son) fully intends to survive the American occuaption with the Shia religion intact. And then the Sunni in Baghdad will all die.

The Sunni know this and therefore cannot disarm.

Posted by Bill White at February 4, 2007 09:04 AM

Oh and back to the Libby trial . . .

The imminent threat Saddam's having nuclear weapons was the reason given for the need to attack in Spring 2003, rather than at some other time.

Once we failed to discover WMD, the Administration had a political crisis on its hands. To mitigate this, Libby allegedly lied to the FBI and a grand jury. Whether or not Plame was lawfully outed, lying to the FBI cannot be tolerated.

Posted by Bill White at February 4, 2007 09:09 AM

Well anon you just answered, for all to see, the depths of your cluelessness. Nothing more needs to be said.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 4, 2007 09:41 AM

The imminent threat Saddam's having nuclear weapons was the reason given for the need to attack in Spring 2003, rather than at some other time.

No, it was not. This is the myth that will not die. I guess some people think that if you keep repeating a lie, eventually everyone will believe it.

Go back and read Bush's 2003 State of the Union. He explicitly said that the threat was not imminent.

This is conjecture on your part. It certainly isn't supported by the available evidence. Many lie to the FBI, and aren't brought to trial. The reason that Libby will probably get off is that everyone else seems to have the same memory problems that he did. This is a misguided (and I think politically driven) prosecution.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 4, 2007 10:42 AM

I don't know about the politically driven part. Isn't Fitzgerald inferred to be straight arrow Republican?

Posted by Offside at February 4, 2007 10:53 AM

Isn't Fitzgerald inferred to be straight arrow Republican?

He was until this episode. But it's hard to imagine what else could have been driving it, when he knew that Armitage was the source early on, but continued to pursue people for a case in which no crime was committed, and no one was charged, until he could come up with a potential perjury rap.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 4, 2007 10:57 AM

Dennis, I don't think you were here when the Nameless Horror (wow, that sorta sounds Lovecraftian, doesn't it?) basically said that the largest proof of Republican perfidity was that that they hadn't flown Sandy Berger off to Guantanamo to be tortured.

IF he's representative of most democrats, this is worrisome; when faced with an external threat, his main criteria for judging the government is whether (or how well) they've set up dictatorship at home. THe funny thing is that while the democrats don't agree with Republican proposals to actually fight the war, they fantasize about having FDR-like total powers over the country if they were to fight it themselves. They consider that their litmus test.

Then they go ahead and screw up the government's attempts to look at money laundering operations.

I find it telling that when faced with an external enemy the only thing they can think of is how to recast it into a way to exercise power over other americans, to the extent that they see anyone who doesn't as lacking. All the while, of course, decrying their enemies as powermad. ANd simultaneously, insufficiently powermad.

I don't like where this is going, it winds up with the US as Lebanon, a massive civil war where sociopathic cr apt ards have risen to the top of the three or four mutually antagonistic fashion, and somewhere, in some basement somewhere, the last three or four liberals huddled together saying "but we didn't think it would end up like this!"

Posted by Phil Fraering at February 4, 2007 11:24 AM

OOps, meant to spell factions "factions" instead of "fashion."

Hopefully you get my point.

Posted by Phil Fraering at February 4, 2007 11:25 AM

****************

Phil

I have to agree. When those who disagree with the religion of global warming have their jobs threatened (weather channel, Dr. John Cristy from the Global Hydrology Center), when those who want to recruit people for the armed forces are driven from campuses (berkley) there is a fundamental problem exposed.

Intolerance of "the other" and attempts to not engage in debate but to silence those who oppose your point of view drives a wedge, that if not closed by a thoughful compromise or a new path that both can agree upon, threatens us with at least a "virtual" civil war, with the victors using the power of the purse, the power of law, to subjugate their opponents.

Neither party at this time is really seeking to address the very large and difficult problems that face our nation in the near future but continue to argue about how many liberals/conservatives can dance upon the head of a pin. (healthcare, student loans, and other drivel). None of these minor issues will matter when the oil runs dry, when the wealth of our nation shifts to those who hate us, and who would destroy us without even a second thought.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 4, 2007 12:10 PM

Phil

Peggy Noonan has a great article on this subject (in a round about way).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Happy Birthday to Mr. Reagan!

Posted by dennis Ray Wingo at February 4, 2007 12:24 PM

If Fitzgerald is partisan, why is Chicago's Mayor Daley and the Democratic governor Blago scared to death of the guy?

Judge Walton who is running the Libby trial has already complimented Fitzgerald for running a scrupulous and well prepared prosecution. Maybe the simple truth is that Fitz believes people who lie to HIS grand jury deserve to be prosecuted.

Fitz also has a bone to pick with Judy Miller because she telephoned some Islamic charities in Chicago seeking a news scoop the night before Fitz had arranged for a raid. Because of Miller's phone call, those Islamicists ran their shredders all night, before the Feds arrived.

Posted by Bill White at February 4, 2007 12:36 PM

Fitzgerald had been investigating three Islamic charities accused of supporting terrorism -- the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, and the Benevolence International Foundation. But just before his investigators could swoop in with warrants, two of the charities in question got wind of what was coming and, apparently, were able to destroy a good deal of evidence.

What tipped them off were calls from two reporters at the New York Times who'd been leaked information about the investigation by folks at the White House.

One of those two reporters was Judy Miller.

Posted by at February 4, 2007 12:39 PM

A Powerline link to the Islamic charities case and Judy Miller:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011835.php

I wrote you about this several months ago. In a published decision, U.S.D.J. Robert Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) denied Fitzpatrick's motion to compel Miller to testify before a grand jury relating to a leak to Miller about a warrant issued to the FBI for a search of a New York Muslim charity's offices. A source leaked this information to Miller, who, incredibly, promptly contacted the Muslim charity and revealed the warrant prior to the search. Fortunately, no FBI agents were injured when they searched the offices the next day, in what clearly could have developed into a very dangerous situation.

Judith Miller belongs in jail. But it would seem she "has the goods" on many within the Administration who used her as a conduit for leaks.

Posted by Bill White at February 4, 2007 12:48 PM

Simberg as usual lies by misdirection.

He cites Bush's 2003 SOTU as the claim "Iraq's WMD program
was not imminent". Of course, Simberg leaves out
Condi Rice saying "We can't wait for the proof to come
in the form of a mushroom cloud", and Simberg leaves
out all the speeches by cheney where he quoted Blair's
statement"Iraq is 45 minutes away from a nuclear strike".

It sounds like Simberg is climbing into the boat and getting
ready to abandon ship on the Iraq war.

Wait until he pulls down his little psuedo-satires of WW2.

Kind of funny, his satire has actually become true
"Administration in crisis over quagmire"
and
"Media casualties mount".

It just came true in a way he didn't expect.

Posted by anonymous at February 4, 2007 03:11 PM

Refresh my memory: what was it that Libby allegedly lied about? I can't make sense of this case - since Plame wasn't a covert op and thus no classified info was leaked, why was there an investigation, other than hubris?

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at February 4, 2007 10:15 PM

Alan, in essence

Libby told the grand jury (under oath) that he first learned certain key facts about Valerie Plame on July 10th from Tim Russert of NBC. Therefore he could not have leaked anything to anyone because he didn't know the relevant facts before July 10th.

Last week, Judith Miller testified in the current trial (and she has notes) saying that Libby told her those same relevant facts about Plame on June 22 or June 23.

In his opening statement, Libby's lawyer said that Libby was a busy man and must have forgotten about the June conversations when he testified to the grand jury. As I recall, Libby's lawyer has not claimed Miller is wrong about the June conversation.

If the current jury believes Libby "forgot" about talking to Judy Miller when he testified to the grand jury then its a "not guilty" verdict. But if the current jury believes Libby lied when he went before the grand jury, then its "guilty"

Posted by Bill White at February 5, 2007 05:30 AM

And either way, it will have been a colossal waste of taxpayer money and prosecutorial resources.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 05:48 AM

And either way, it will have been a colossal waste of taxpayer money and prosecutorial resources.

Yeah, it's truly COLOSSAL. As the Post said, "In its first 15 months, the investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office." There is no question about it, 700 grand is a tsunami of cash. It's so much money, it could pay for almost 4 minutes of the war in Iraq.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 5, 2007 08:38 AM

It's colossal relative to its value (which is zero, or negative).

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 08:46 AM

I agree with Rand that it is a waste, if not of money, of attention and the attendant expectation of major revelations. It's been a circus, and a very confusing one at that.

Posted by Offside at February 5, 2007 11:39 AM

What about Judith Miller tipping off those Islamic "charities" -- who then ran their shredders just before the FBI arrived?

Is that a [big deal] or [no big deal] ??

As for Libby and Miller, that turning aspens note is fasciniating.

E. Lewis Libby wrote a note to Judith Miller reminding her that aspen trees change all at once because they are connected at the roots. Or, we must hang together as we will surely hang separately.

Posted by Bill White at February 5, 2007 01:07 PM

Offside, on one hand I agree. But on the other Fitzgerald is a patient and meticulous prosecutor with a stellar reputation for integrity. (Excluding those laying astroturf.)

Fitzgerald is not finished, yet. His grand jury remains in session.

Posted by Bill White at February 5, 2007 01:10 PM

Fitzgerald is not finished, yet.

Ah, hope springs eternal for those kids waiting for Fitzmas. How many years will you continue to wait, before you give up, Bill?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 01:13 PM

Right now, my biggest question is whether E. Lewis Libby will take the witness stand.

It's kinda hard to argue "I didn't lie, I merely forgot" if you refuse to testify.

In any event, lying to the FBI and grand juries is something we -- as a society -- should discourage.

Posted by Bill White at February 5, 2007 01:25 PM

It's worse than a waste, it's a miscarriage of justice. Libby hasn't done anything to deserve prosecution. And merely by being prosecuted, even if he is not convicted, he is being ruined financially and professionally. "Lying to federal officials" is a catchall used by corrupt prosecutors to convict absent evidence of a real crime. If Fitzgerald had any maturity or decency he would have dropped the case long ago. But our system rewards ambition and moral unscrupulousness in prosecutors, since they cannot be held personally liable for abusing their discretion. Like Nifong, Fitzgerald has abused defendants and the justice system, and in an ideal world would himself be punished.

Posted by Jonathan at February 5, 2007 02:10 PM

It's kinda hard to argue "I didn't lie, I merely forgot" if you refuse to testify.

Why is that? Aren't his lawyers competent to argue for him?

In any event, lying to the FBI and grand juries is something we -- as a society -- should discourage.

So much so that he should be sent to prison for years? Even when there is no crime, or even civil suit, associated with the lie?

Did it bother you when a president did it to prevent a young woman who he abused from getting justice, under a law that he signed with his own pen?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 02:31 PM

Libby's lawyers certainly can and will argue well even if Libby declines to testify but if his defense is "I'm being made the scapegoat for Rove" and "I forgot I talked to Judy Miller in June" and "Tim Russert told me" -- when the expectation is that Tim Russert will deny telling Libby -- the jury will certainly find those arguments less persuasive if E. Lewis Libby declines to testify.

As for Bill Clinton -- if that jerk had only kept his pants zippied, Al Gore would be President. Liberals have more cause to be angry with Slick Willy than righties.

Posted by Bill White at February 5, 2007 02:54 PM

...the jury will certainly find those arguments less persuasive if E. Lewis Libby declines to testify.

Maybe, or maybe not. Either way, the argument will be made. Only one juror has to be persuaded.

As for Bill Clinton -- if that jerk had only kept his pants zippied, Al Gore would be President.

Hey, all they had to do to make Al Gore president was to serve justice, and help the Republicans remove Clinton from office. He might be president still.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

I always thought that this was the ultimate irony in the "affair." I still laugh at their stupidity, and their obvious derangement against the Republicans, that seemed to demand that they defend a criminal, just because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It was a presage of the current Bush derangement (particularly considering that Bush could pass for a moderate Democrat on the domestic front, in terms of many of his policy positions). ;-)

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 03:04 PM

But it's hard to imagine what else could have been driving it

He's a prosecutor, Rand, and in a very high-profile case. If he doesn't get any kind of conviction, what will happen to his career? He's clearly not going anywhere with Republican Administrations, so he's got to hope to win Democratic favors. What's he going to do? He's just got to get a conviction or his career takes a dive. Personal trumps politics any day.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 5, 2007 06:45 PM

It's even more trivial compared to the amount of money expended every year by 13-15 year old girls on lipstick. But much larger than the cost of a bean burrito at Taco Bell. Wow, what insight you can draw by comparing two random numbers!

And what about Scooter Libby's WMD program, huh?

Posted by Carl Pham at February 5, 2007 06:49 PM

In today's news:

# The federal judge presiding over the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby ruled this morning that the public is entitled to hear audiotapes of Libby's testimony before the grand jury that investigated the 2003 leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity....

# Defense attorney William H. Jeffress Jr. argued this morning that access to Libby's grand jury testimony by the public and the press should be restricted to written transcripts, not the tapes themselves.

# "It is great stuff, and all of the radio stations and television stations will be broadcasting soundbites," Jeffress said. "There will be commentary."

There will be commentary. Oh, the Horror! the Horror!

Posted by AnonyMoose at February 5, 2007 06:51 PM

Simberg likes to claim the Libby prosecution is unconnected to
any crime.

The underlying crime appears to be a white house conspiracy to
out a CIA agent working on WMD issues (Valerie Plame).
The CIA asked Justice to investigate and during the coverup
which included a white house press secretary (McClellan)
lying about the involvement of Rove and Libby, Libby chose
to lie to FBI agents about when he knew about Plame's
Identity and wether he had discussed this with members of
the press.

At a minimum, Several Bush officials were involved in
leaking the Identity of a deep cover CIA official for
political purposes.

Simberg will seek to carry water for Bush on this, but,
Libby deserves to hang for his role in this affair as a
threat to national security.

Posted by anonymous at February 5, 2007 08:22 PM

Oh anon please take off the tinfoil. Even Fitzgerald does not allege anything of the sort. All he is prosekewering Libby for is lying to a Grand Jury. He gave up on the outing Plame thing long ago.

Don't you keep up with the Daily Kos anymore?

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 5, 2007 09:56 PM

Being "serviced" by Monica wasn't a crime either and Al Capone went to prison for income tax evasion.

Posted by at February 6, 2007 05:21 AM

Wingnut.

Fitzgerald discussed the entire issue at his press conference.

His exact calim is that when a witness perjures themselves to
the grand jury, they derail the investigative process.

Consequently it becomes hard to follow the truth to see
what went down.

It is interesting listening to the Neo-cons, they will shout,
they will beat the drum, they will point fingers, but,
none of them will answer a fundamental question.

Is it Good National security policy to release the name of
CIA Agents?

If it's bad policy, does it harm the national security of the country?

If it harms the country, why are federal officials doing this?

Posted by anonymous at February 6, 2007 07:12 AM

"There are three more hours of tapes to get through tomorrow, and then Tim Russert testifies. Fitzgerald could not have set the table for his appearance any better. Throughout the taped testimony, Libby repeats over and over again that he could not have heard about Plame from so-and-so, because he remembers being surprised when Russert told him. Well, Russert is going to show up and say he never told Libby about Plame, and if the jury were tempted to believe Libby over the endless parade of people who all would have had to mis-remember in exactly the same way in order for his story to hold up, the Russert testimony may strike the final blow. And while Russert no doubt dreads having to testify, he will probably use the opportunity to try and counter Cathie Martin's assertion last week that he was in the bag for Dick Cheney, ever the pliant administration propagandist. "

Posted by Fire Dog Lake at February 6, 2007 08:36 PM

The prosecution has rested in this case.

If the prosecution is truly weak, the judge will issue
a directed verdict.

If not they will have met a factual burden to sustain
the case.

Say what you will about NiFong, those cases haven't gone
to trial.

As for the merits, who outed Valerie Plame?
Is this good security policy?
Where's the outrage?

Posted by anonymous at February 8, 2007 02:33 PM

As for the merits, who outed Valerie Plame?

Richard Armitage

Is this good security policy?

No, allowing intel operators to collect data on an enemy and then provide it to the press for their own personal financial benefit is bad security policy.

Where's the outrage?

There is plenty of outrage against Joe and Val. Unfortunately, too many morons can't get past the original story presented to them and thus still believe Joe and Val are some sort of heroes.

Posted by Leland at February 9, 2007 07:30 AM

If Armitage was the leak, why hasn't he had his
clearances popped, why wasn't he summarily fired?

As a deputy sec of state, he was a presidential appointee.

and if you read the facts, libby was leaking plame to miller,
Rove was leaking this to cooper, fleischer spilled this too.

leland, you are not allowed to make up your own facts.

Posted by anonymous at February 9, 2007 04:59 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/02/03/weekinreview/20070204_LIBBY_GRAPHIC.html

pretty much who said what when, according to their
testimony.

It also includes some of the comments about Rove.

What are white house officials doing leaking the names
of CIA officials?

Posted by anonymous at February 12, 2007 09:39 AM

Post a comment