Via the comments in a previous post, this tidbit:
Prosecutors investigating the leak of a CIA agent’s identity returned their attention to powerful White House advisor Karl Rove on Tuesday, questioning a former West Wing colleague about contacts Rove had with reporters in the days leading to the outing of a covert CIA officer.
Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald also dispatched FBI agents to comb the CIA officer’s residential neighborhood in Washington, asking neighbors again whether they were aware — before her name appeared in a syndicated column — that the agent, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.
Read the whole thing. I am still pretty confident that if there are indictments, Libby will go down for some sort of perjury/obstruction, and perhaps Rove as well.
If I am wrong, and they get charged with more serious crimes, I say screw ’em. I have no use for people that actually leak secrets or put agents in danger. I just don’t think (and I certainly have not seen any evidence- just rumors and allegations) that is what happened here. Make of that what you will.
Sojourner
Hey John:
Does it bother you that the alternative is the Bushies outed her through sheer incompetence?
The best case scenario is they didn’t “know” she was undercover. Just like they didn’t “know” about the warnings before 9/11 and the lack of WMD in Iraq.
Giving them the benefit of that doubt that they didn’t intend to out her, how much more incompetence from this administration can this country handle?
Tim F
I can make, without hesitation, one rock-solid prediction for thursday: inebriation.
Jon H
The ‘asking her neighbors’ thing seems interesting.
It suggests he isn’t going to go for just perjury/conspiracy/obstruction. He might rely on such things if he found it true that it was “common knowledge” that she was CIA.
It might even mean he will actually use the IIPA, and is doing some last-minute double checking before pulling that out.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Perjury is just a technicality!
Didn’t you guys get the memo?!
(not saying this is your position John)
Jon H
Hey, John.
Did you see this?
“In its first 15 months, the investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office.”
Fitz is definitely giving good value for the taxpayer’s dollar.
Meanwhile, the investigation into Clintonite Henry Cisneros is *still* going on, after 10 years or so, and $20 million. And his crime has already been dealt with, Cisneros paying a $10,000 fine.
Mr Furious
John, I hope you’re wrong. As sojourner says above, for this to have happened unintentionally is almost worst/scarier.
FWIW, I think this was a calculated move that came straight from Cheney, but he walks away scot-free, Libby bears the brunt gets canned, and Rove gets a slap. Bush “chews him out” and these fuckers go on screwing up the country.
I really hope I’m wrong.
The Holywriter
Too bad that, no matter what happens, it doesn’t undo anything the neocon’s have drug us into.
Vladi G
Sounds like John is saying that’s his position, at least implicitly.
I don’t know if you believe this or not, John, but from that sentence it sounds like you’re saying if it’s just perjury and obstruction, it’s no big deal. But if it’s more serious, than screw ’em. Is that your position? I mean, forget the grand jury, aren’t you pissed that they’ve lied to you and everyone else? Repeatedly?
ppGaz
Well … chuckle … don’t mind if I do!
First of all, you haven’t seen any “evidence” because this investigation hasn’t leaked any. And what passes for “evidence” in the blahsphere (the blurry world of cablenews – blogorama – punditry) is just blather. If someone didn’t “out” a NOC, then why did the CIA refer the matter to the Justice Department? Do we think that CIA can’t tell whether its people are under cover or not? I know they’re messed up, but really! What fucking nonsense.
This administration passed the Duck Test for mendacity and incompetance a long time ago, often by your own accounts. By what strange rationale would you conclude that in this one particular area … war, and intelligence … they would not screw the pooch?
Ah, never mind. This story will tell itself, it doesn’t need us to do it.
DougJ
And if all they did was accidentally out her and the lie about it to federal prosecutors, then give them medals.
Come on, the perjury isn’t a serious crime is right out of the Karl Rove talking point book. At least jazz it up a little, John.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’ll have to disagree there. Merely stating that outing a CIA agent is more serious than perjury is not saying perjury isn’t a crime–it is just stating the facts. And I agree that outing a CIA agent is much more serious.
Slide
I just don’t get John here. We KNOW that they leaked the identity of Ms. Wilson. Half a dozen reporters got called by Rove and Libby with the info. We KNOW she was a covert CIA agent. The ONLY reason they wouldn’t be charged is because it may be inpossible to PROVE that they KNEW her status was covert. Its hard to prove something like that unless they were observed reading that state dept memo marked secret. But even if Fitz doesn’t have that level of proof sufficient to charge them doesn’t for a moment suggest that they didn’t do what they were accused of.
ppGaz
Nope, that’s the Internets version of conventional wisdom these days, but I don’t agree.
Suppose you are the chief of staff to the president or vice president of the country. You are about to bandy around the name of a CIA employee. Are you telling me that it is not YOUR JOB, your solemn responsibility, to ascertain the status of that employee before you start talking to reporters?
Unless the answer to that question is YES, then the law and this case are nothing but practical jokes. Of course the answer is yes, and of course if she was covert, they’re guilty. Nothing could be simpler. How on earth a different version of this tableau got out there and got accepted as truth, is beyond me. It calls into question the entire process by which this information is both gathered and disseminated AFAIC.
If she was covert, then the law was broken by revealing her CIA employment. Period. It’s their JOB to find that out, for crissakes.
Tree
I don’t remember where I read this but the blog stated that another Star was added to the wall of fallen CIA agents shortly after Mrs. Plame was outed. There is no name with the Star and that suggests a covert agent was killed.
Endangering National Security during a time of war by passing classified information to anyone not entitled to receive such information is Treason. And it carries a Death Penalty in time of War if it causes a death to occur.
John Cole
Of course I don’t think perjury is anything to scoff at- but treason is a tad bit worse.
Although an innocent party would have to be insane or exceptionally arrogant to commit perjury if they had nothing to hide.
DougJ
That’s the key point for me. It seems very, very likely that Libby lied to Fitzgerald and attempted to influence Miller’s testimony. Why would he have done this if he weren’t covering up for some kind of a crime? Thus, I’m forced to conclude that there was an underlying outting of an agent type crime here.
KC
I’m expecting a few slaps here and there but nothing too earth shattering. However, I am certain that if this situation happened while Clinton was in office, we’d be watching a very serious, very solemn, trial in the Senate right now over the leak of a CIA operative as part a political revenge operation.
Jcricket
Nice explanation (seriously) John. Treason is very very bad. Perjury is less bad. Lying to hide your involvement in something that borders on treason is in-between.
Hmm, not sure how that would apply here. I see nothing but “decorum” from the administration on how they handle issues.
ppGaz
There are two possible reasons for that stupidity. Covering up a crime is one. And a very good possibility, I think. The other is even better, though: Covering up for a blatant and completely cynical manipulation of the Niger “evidence.”
It’s entirely possible that both of these are true: They knew that the agent had been wrongly outed, and they knew that they had lied through their teeth about the yellowcake evidence. If that’s so, then some judicious lying to cover those things up doesn’t seem so stupid, really. Futile, but not stupid.
DougJ
If this had happened under Clinton, he would have been forced out of office. The right is much, much better at pushing things. The lefty blogs are helping, but they’re still nothing like Fox News and Rush in terms of influence. That — along with the fact that Congress is in Republican hands — is the big difference here.
Andrew J. Lazarus
We may see only perjury/obstruction because the low-level conspirators have every last one flipped in return for unindicted co-conspirator status. If I remember Rumpole, the phase where the villains are all selling each other out for leniency is called “Cutthroat” in the UK. I imagine this will be the example of Prisoner’s Dilemma in every game theory textbook for the next decade.
Jcricket
Something else to think about. Even if “only” a few indictments are handed down, and those indictments are “only” about perjury & obstruction, it still hurts the Bush administration, and the rest of the GOP by extension. Especially as the trials get played out publicly. The Bush administration does has an ever worseening reputations for veracity (as evidenced in poll after poll), and it’s only going to get worse as details are revealed about how they operate.
Morever, there’s nothing that Rove, Cheney, etc. hate more than the light of day shined on their inner workings. Just look at how hard Cheney fought to keep negotiations with the energy industry secret, or how hard Bush is fighting to avoid releasing Meiers’ records. So expect to see them stonewall even harder as the pressure increases, which will only make the inevitable discoveries more damaging.
Moral of the story: “It’s rarely the initial lie, it’s the coverup” (i.e. politicians still haven’t learned the Nixon lesson).
cfw
If Fitz lists Bush as unindicted coconspirator, Cheney as conspirator with Libby and Rove, what then? Libby and Rove and Cheney resign? Does Bush also resign? If he does not, and he pardons Chaney, Rove, Libby, what prevents next administration (if Dem) from prosecuting Bush (after Bush leaves office)? To prevent that, Bush could resign and have Condi pardon him. Or just take his chances.
Could soon get grim for Bush et al. Not a “let’s all get drunk” scenario, imho.
scs
Okay I am not convinced by all the hand wringing. I still think the whole thing is a little silly. The important fact here is, did the admin guys try to cause danger to Valerie Plame by outing her? Did they try to intimidate Joe Wilson by outing her? The answer is no. The reason they presumably talked about her at all was to give background to reporters about Joe Wilson’s silly trip. They gave the info to reputable reporters, not to a foreign enemy, in a confidential manner. The reporters were presumably trusted not to actually blurt her name out but to give background on Wilson’s wife recommending him. Just because Novak decided to blab doesn’t mean that Rove or Wilson did anything treasonous or illegal. The reason I believe this? Why would Rove and Libby WANT to be busted doing something illegal? They should be smarter than that.
Ancient Purple
It is absurd to think that it is okay to reveal the name of a CIA operative to someone because he or she is a “reputable reporter.” I didn’t realize that you get some magic pixie dust sprikled on you when you get a journalism degree or work for a newspaper making you a guaranteed trustworthy person.
If Libby, Rove or Cheney think otherwise, they have no business being in government in any form or fashion.
Andrei
How incredibly insightful. [/yawn].
I make of that you area pussy with regard to holding the administration accountable on their actions and statements in the run up to war, and on clinging to the conservative idea that the only repsonse ot 9/11 was brute force. Seemingly believing that they what did go on here wasn’t somehow inappropriate given your statement above. I mean really… if they didn’t do anything illegal, what’s the problem is what you seem to be saying, and that’s just crap.
With everything we know about the false evidence, the sheenanigans and posturing with reporters, the trust in people like Chalabi for key intel and the outright cover-ups during this whole Plame fiasco, why on earth more people aren’t outraged that our government sent American soliders to die in a foreign country over a war of choice is beyond me.
Oh yeah… we live in such a good Christian society that they way we repsond to things like 9/11 is to blow up some shit cause it makes people feel good.
I mean, sure… you finally admitted you were wrong about WMD and Iraq, John. I guess that makes everything right. [/golfclap]
For God knows what absurd reason, people seem to cling to the idea that the Iraq war was the Right Thing To Do(tm). If it was the right thing to do, the GOP should have sold it on the terms Condi Rice finally admitted to on Meet the Press two weeks ago. A “bold experiment” to reshape the middle east in an attempt to stabilize the region trying to kill three birds with one stone it appears: secure precious oil, stop terrorists while providing security to Americans, and bring more capitalism to the region to expand business opportunities. (Oh yeah, this last point is referred to as “freedom on the march.”)
But the GOP didn’t. They sold it on bloodlust, on righting a wrong with Shock and Awe, and on the imminent threat we were about to get nuked.
And it was all horseshit.
The Plame fiasco is all about an adminsitration that is so cowardly in its actions that they can’t even defend or openly debate real policy issues like going into a preemptive war of choice for the sake of securing the future of capitalism, democracy, world peace and stopping terrorists. They took a different road by attempting to back-handly discredit any dissent however they wanted.
Loyalty oaths? Talking points? Talk radio attacks dogs? Why the fuck didn’t the administration just say Joe Wilson has a right to his opinion, but we beg to differ and leave it that?
The GOP has proven itself to be large on talk, and so incredibly incompetent on policy decisions and execution it’s mind boggling. And so many of you GOPers (TallDave, Defense Guy, Darrell, Stormy, etc.) continue to act as if you won two landslide elections in a row even in the face of what are legitimate beefs the rest of us have with the way things are run. And you Cole, for all your “right reasonableness” have been sorely lacking with regard to this aspect of the conservative agenda.
Where is the outrage? Really? Where the fuck is all the outrage we see from you over things like Schiavo or Sheehan or Katrina?
Make of it what I will? Ok… Honestly? I make of it that you want to play it safe on this topic, because to not do so might mean everything you’ve believed in for the past ten years or more years in your conservative philosophy is being called into question by the actions of an incompetent administration. That’s an absurd guess giving what you’ve written here, but it’s hard to know what you think anymore given the amount of snark you post about some of the more serious issues facing our country. Intelligent Design? Schiavo? Sheehan? Those are easy blogging targets. Anyone can get upset about those regardless of political leanings. But the Iraq war seems to hit closer to a political philosophical home and you are much less vocal on that topic with personal opinion than you are when talking aobut how much you think Galloway is a lying sack of shit. I mean, you did for vote for Bush a second time, didn’t you?
If you want me to be direct, I think you honestly want to be fair and balanced here. But I also find that position severly lacking giving everything we know up to this point.
FWIW, I find the lack of spine in almost all elected Democratic leaders these days more foul than the contempt I have for an asshat like Bush. Democractic leaders need to admit they were wrong and duped, and they need to stop pandering to the idea that the Iraq War was a vote they still stand by. They gave the administration a blank check and then proceeded to roll over even in the face of how bad things have gone so far. They fucked up worse than the GOP imho for lacking a spine in being a real party of dissent.
At this stage, I don’t care about indictments or legal technicialities. It’s been 5 years of incompetence and it needs to stop. Really… it needs to fucking to stop right now.
Andrei
Keep going. You’re getting warmer.
db
Tim F says,
I sense a drinking game coming on for the news this Thursday; crap, after staying up for 14 innings tonight I should be recovered by then – so please, Fitzy, don’t hand anything out Wednesday – I’ll be in no shape for it.
Somebody call the channel to watch; somebody call the key words and the drinks to be had…
Hopefully it won’t be as long of a game on Wed night.
KC
Talkleft.com has an interesting post about Rove getting off for spilling the beans.
p.lukasiak
I think that there was a genuine “obstruction of justice”.
There is a “Mister X” who was Novak’s source. I suspect that Mister X inadvertently told/suggested to Novak that Plame was a “CIA operative” in a different, non-NOC context (that is, that Plame was part of the supposed CIA cabal out to discredit the Bush administration because no WMDs were being found).
Soon after the original controversy erupted “Mister X” went to his superior, fessed up, and asked what he should do. He was told to keep his mouth shut (either directly, or indirectly, by Libby/Cheney)— that it would all blow over.
But it didn’t — and when a special prosecutor was appointed, Novak disclosed that Mr. X was his source. When confronted with Novak’s disclosure, Mr. X admitted what he had done and also told why he hadn’t come forward.
I also think that Rove is now co-operating—that Libby and Cheney are the primary targets, but that Fitzgerald had Rove by the short hairs thanx to Cooper — and that Bush told Rove to make Libby and Cheney the fall guys because Rove is too valuable for him to lose….
SLE
This game about “unintentionally” outing Plame is crap.
Every single person who has a clearance knows not to publically identify intelligence officers. Period.
Until about 10 years ago, CIA employees wouldn’t even tell friends where they worked. Most still won’t. There is good reason for this: they are ALL, undercover or not, targets of foreign intelligence agencies.
At a minimum, the people who discussed Plame with reporters should have had their clearances yanked immediately. I cannot pass on the legality of the matter, but any talking point that dismisses the malfeasance of the leakers is the purest bullshit.
Stormy70
Of course, if you enter by the front door everyday to go work at Langley, someone might determine you are drawing a paycheck.
SLE
Stormy70: You are just pointing out their vulnerability. Why don’t you ask yourself this: who would station themselves outside the CIA and start identifying the people going to work?
This was a serious security breach, no ifs, ands, or buts. Rove, Libby, and any other government official that played footsie with reporters over Plame’s identity should not have any access to classified information.
DougJ
You’re right scs. All together now: *perjury is not a big deal.*
DougJ
And for you, Stormy: *obstruction of justice is not a big deal*.
Hey, Stormy, Scs and the other Rovians. I have some questions for you:
Why do you hate the truth?
Why do you hate the rule of law?
Why do you hate the CIA?
Why do you hate national security?
Why do you hate America?
Why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t have laws?
DougJ
You don’t have to answer all those questions, but could you at least answer this:
Which do you hate more, the rule of law, or national security?
Chris Johnson
My guess is: sealed indictments because the guy’s not finished ‘dealing up’, and that Rove is being induced to betray and rat on Bush himself, not just Cheney. People keep talking about this guy and how amazingly loyal he is supposed to be. That’s all very well when Bush was Caesar, but now that he’s losing? I say Rove is betraying him.
Jon H
“Of course, if you enter by the front door everyday to go work at Langley, someone might determine you are drawing a paycheck.”
How much you want to bet that if someone tried to monitor exits and entries, they’d quickly be interrupted by security?
slide
While we are all waiting, somemore idle speculation. Yesterday it was reported that Fitz’s FBI was re-interviewing neighbors of the Wilsons to see if any knew she were in the CIA. (They didn’t btw). Why? Well, some have speculated that Fitz must be looking at violations of the Identitites Act. But perhaps he is looking at a broader conspiracy charge here. You’ll remember at the time the scandal broke, some were saying that her involvment in the CIA was no secret that “everyone” in Washington knew she was in the CIA. Apparently that is NOT the case. Could the individuals spreading such disinformation have done it in concert with the leakers? For example this was said:
Now this FORMER CIA agent that left the agency over 15 YEARS AGO is commenting on Plame’s identity? Did someone in the administration ask him to make these comments? Get my drift? And lets not forget the lies of Cliff May, neocon, of National Review:
Really? Now who told him that you suppose? Someone in the administration? Sounds rather conspiratoral to me.
ATS
Let’s not lose sight of the Libby corollary. Libby’s past work for Marc Rich is fact. Rich’s connection to weapons oligarchs is fact. The Oligarchs running to Israel is fact.
Whether Plame’s work was indeed in this nuke-busting area–and imperiled the Russ-Ukranians schemes— is still speculative, but damn interesting.
Ditto for the inferences drawn from seeing Fitzgerald giving info to McNulty’s AIPAC inquiry.
If there is something to this, Libby, Hadley, Feith, Wurmser, Joseph, Hannah, Abrams and Perle* have plenty more to worry about.
ATS
* Need I remind you, Fitzgerald has his nose in the Hollinger mess too. Perle is a big part of that investigation.
scs
Chill DougJ. Once again you take a kernel and blow it up into a beanstalk. You got me, I hate the truth, I hate America. Anyway, perjury is usually only prosecuted for perjury when it is relevant to an actual offense being committed. To act so Shocked, Shocked that a politican leaked classified info to a reporter is naive. It happens everyday probably. The fact that we even know at all what is happening in the grand jury is an offense that someone should prosecute by that standard. One could maybe argue that this particular secret leaking was worse, but I think it was mostly just a confluence of events and bad judgement. Libby and Rove should have just said something like Wilson’s wife worked for the “government” in a capacity they can’t “disclose”. That would have worked for them just as well. But to put some guys in prison because they were stupid and were a little fuzzy on whether they heard a name here or there, when NO crime was committed underneath it, seems like overkill to me. Publicly censure them and move on.
slide
scs musta drank a double dose of the Kool-Aid today. lol
Veeshir
Most of the above, reasoned, comments are obviously totally above reproach and only done in the interests of helping our country.
But one stuck out for it’s absolute hilarity, a-historicity and outright nitwiticity:
If this had happened under Clinton, he would have been forced out of office.
Now that’s funny. Clinton and Gore were caught committing actual treason and there was absolutely no backlash.
So they broke a law sponsored by Gore and there was absolutely no backlash and you actually think that merely lying to investigators would have forced him out of office?
That’s….. funny.
Oh, and don’t forget this part
Veeshir
By the way, here’s the link to the NY Times article.
slide
I see another Kool-Aid drinker has appeared with Veeshir saying this nonsense:
huh? the Republicans IMPEACHED Clinton over lying in a deposition, in a non-material matter, of a CIVIL case, involving consentual sex. Lol. Drink up.
scs
Okay here’s a conspiracy thought. Maybe Veeshir’s posting on Clinton’s Admin allowing Russia to sell WMD to Iran is connected to Valerie Plame. Plame was involved perhaps in Russian-Ukraine WMD deals at the same time, which was connected by poster ATS to Marc Rich and Libby. Maybe there’s a connection there. Perhaps Libby was suspicious that there was a plot to discredit Bush by the Wilson’s so that their weapons deals from the Clinton era involving Russia and Iran and Iraq would not be exposed. Okay I’m just having fun here. Never mind.
Darrell
The left told us over and over that THE main issue they were upset about was the (possible) outing of a covert CIA agent’s identity. I agree that if that is what happened, guilty parties should be hung out to dry. But IF found guilty on that charge, what punishment should be handed out for Plame and her husband who were at least in part responsible. Why in the hell would her husband be writing flame throwing op-eds in the NY Times which later proved to be complete lies smearing the administration if his wife was a deep cover CIA secret agent? Does Wilson have no culpability for his very public attacks which turned out to be lies?
Of course, Wilson was “confused” and he may have “mispoken”. Wilson lied his ass off, and did so in the context of smear-attacks against the administration knowing that those attacks would draw a LOT of attention. But the left is too dishonest to acknowledge this fact
Now moving beyond the issue that the left has never before given a rat’s ass about the CIA, note how DougJ and others are now moving the goalposts. First, they told us that THE main issue was the outing of a covert CIA agent.. now they are trumping up the importance of the lesser charges of which someone may be found guilty over something that had nothing to do with outing of a CIA covert agent
DougJ
I like your conspiracy theory, scs. I was going to spin one, but I don’t think I can match yours. Good work.
DougJ
Darrell, so it doesn’t bother you that they lied before a grand jury? What happened to all that rule of law stuff?
Here is a serious question, though: if there was no underlying crime, then what were they lying to cover up for?
scs
Hey Dougj, I have to amuse myself somehow. This story is getting a little stale otherwise.
DougJ
I agree. And I’m always glad to see people making light of things instead of calling each other fascists and communists.
Darrell
But DougJ, you and all your lefties told us THE issue was the possible outing of a CIA secret agent? If it turns out that didn’t happen, well, if you’re a lefty, you simply change gears and become enraged over lesser charges that have nothing to do with the outing of a CIA agent.
They may have withheld information because of worries Fitz might read about embarrassing sensitive conversations about subjects which had nothing to do with Fitz’s investigation.. Who knows? We’ll see what they allegedly lied about and then talk.
Bottom line for me me, and what the left originally claimed was THE issue for them, is whether or not a covert CIA agent was intentionally outed.
DougJ
Darrell, what if the perjury and obstruction of justice make it impossible to determine that a CIA agent was intentionally outed. Should we prosecute those crime, too?
I’m speculating here — maybe there will be no indictments. But it seems to me that you can’t say that is okay to lie before a grand jury about something that you believe is a serious crime. If the crime being hidden is serious, then the lying is serious, too. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Darrell
If it’s plausible that such perjury and/or obstruction of justice did make it impossible to conclusively determine if a CIA agent was intentially outed, then prosecute those crimes aggressively.
But what if they withheld information based on concerns that other sensitive and/or embarrassing information may have come to light which had nothing to do with Fitzgerald’s investigation? Do you think they should be nailed to the wall for that?
Veeshir
Conspiracy? Are you people really that stupid? I was responding to a particular comment that I helpfully provided. This one, for the reading impaired among you
If this had happened under Clinton, he would have been forced out of office.
So yes, my post was on-topic for the comment to which I was responding. Nitwits.
You people are a perfect example of the title of Mr. Toole’s book. Not a conspiracy but a confederacy. Especially your self-congratulatory back-pats over your collective brilliance. That one never fails to make me laugh.
As for this
huh? the Republicans IMPEACHED Clinton over lying in a deposition, in a non-material matter, of a CIVIL case, involving consentual sex. Lol. Drink up.
Ummm, they didn’t force him out of office. (Reading comprehension is your friend.)
They impeached him for lying, under oath, on a subject that was the subject of the case, in a civil trial that happened because of a law that Clinton had signed to much fanfare and they still didn’t force him out of office for provably breaking the law.
I repeat my comment, that’s nitwicity and a-historicity of the highest order.
DougJ
Fair enough, Darrell.
That’s a tough question. If the other stuff was illegal, then yes. If it was just embarrassing, I lean towards “no” unless it involved the — possibly legal — forgery of the Niger documents.
It’s a good question you ask in any case. Of course, the interesting thing here is that Clinton was impeached for lying about embarrassing but legal activities. Did you support his impeachment? (I think I remember you saying *you* didn’t, but I’ll bet Veeshir and Stormy did).
Veeshir
I supported throwing him out of office for far more than that case.
The case I posted above was the worst, in my opinion.
DougJ
Veeshir: you think *that’s* the worst? What about those hobos he killed in Arkansas? What about hiring Richard Clarke to kill Vince Foster, then having Valerie Plame lose the CIA investigation files of the murder?
Darrell
He was impeached over lying about a minor issue, but he got away with things MUCH worse and more damaging
At the time, yes, because Clinton was so arrogant with his denials and his attempts to smear without basis those who came forward with unflattering information, for those reasons at the time, I admit I did cheer his impeachment. With the benefit of hindsight now, I couldn’t care less.
The Disenfranchised Voter
scs
Did you really did to type all that just to say “Perjury is a technicality”?
Veeshir
What about those hobos he killed in Arkansas? What about hiring Richard Clarke to kill Vince Foster, then having Valerie Plame lose the CIA investigation files of the murder?
Thanks for answering my question from earlier.
You really are that stupid.
slide
But it did happen. Valerie Wilson’s name was revealed through the actions of administration officals. Period. We know that. There has been sworn testimony to that effect. Now you can argue that they were so fuckin incompetent and reckless that they didn’t know, or care enough to find out, that she was covert perhaps, but you can’t argue that they didn’t reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent. Reprehensible.
DougJ
You mean you don’t buy that story about Clinton killing the hobos in Arkansas? It was in the Wall Street Journal, you know.
Darrell
Exhibit A of the deluded and ever so stupid left. Show us the sworn testimony to that effect. Links? transcripts?
Sojourner
The same punishment that is allotted to people who were stupid enough to be robbed, women who were stupid enough to be raped, and people who were stupid enough to be assaulted. After all, they were partially responsible for what happened to them, right?
DougJ
Darrell, I admire your honesty regarding your feelings about impeachment.
Shygetz
Hmmm, replace Clinton with Rove (or DeLay if you’re feeling frisky) and it looks eerily familiar…
Bruce Moomaw
If it was “just” perjury and obstruction, then of course we’re left with the question of what they felt it necessary to cover up by perjuring and obstructing. A rather major matter in itself.
Darrell
Not than unfair a comparison to make. And DougJ’s Clinton-murdered-hobos reminder.. I only vaguely remember that one, but the accusation is hilarious in an absurd sort of way, and Vince Foster of course. Those reminders take down my Republican smugness a few notches unfortunately
scs
I said :
To which the Disenfranshied Voter said:
You blocked my quote out for naught, DisVtr. To explain even further, which I find I have to do a lot around here, perjury is a LEGAL offense – not exactly equivalent to lying. We should all know that from the Clinton years. It has to be RELEVANT to the underlying charge to be prosecuted. If there is no underlying crime there is no perjury charge (usually). Of course that depends on the interpretation of the prosecutor and there is a fine line between relevance and no relevance to an offense. But in most legal opinions, if the lying is not relevant to the case, it is not prosecuted. So in that SPECIFIC CASE, I would say, yes, perjury is a technicality.