• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

This fight is for everything.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

Every reporter and pundit should have to declare if they ever vacationed with a billionaire.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

T R E 4 5 O N

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

I really should read my own blog.

People are complicated. Love is not.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Fitzgerald and Libby

Fitzgerald and Libby

by John Cole|  October 28, 20055:08 pm| 55 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

I had to step out for a while after the indictments were handed down, so I am going to read the transcript of the press conference, the indictment (again), and the nine page statement in a litle bit, and then I will get around to deciding what I think of the whole affair. I tried to read the comments in the last thread, but it got unreadable with all the denial on one side and overstated triumphalism from the other side. One quick thing- the indictment proves one thing and one thing only- that Libby has been indicted. So both sides, please knock it off.

Today’s events don’t prove that Valerie Plame was a NOC and was outed and national security was irreparably harmed. Today’s events don’t prove that Plame wasn’t a NOC and that nothing bad happened. It doesn’t prove that every Kossack conspiracy theory and wet dream about the administration is true. It proves that Fitzgerald presented enough evidence to the Grand Jury to get them to indict Libby on the five charges that have been presented to us.

For now, Tom Maguire has some questions that remain unanswered:

Some obvious puzzles remain:

Who was Novak’s source?

Was national security harmed by the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity?

Will there be other charges against other officials?

Jeralynn also has some questions:

Among the unanswered questions:

Has anyone agreed to plead guilty in the investigation
Who was Novak’s source
Who was Pincus’s source
Is Fitz contemplating a charge that officials violated Valerie Plame’s civil rights under 1983?

Meanwhile, for the most comprehensive round-up of center right responses, check out Jeff Goldstein, who liveblogged events as they unfolded and has a link rich round-up.

I am off to cook dinner, read what we have right now, and watch the new Batman that just came out on DVD.

*** Update ***

Mark Kleiman and the first commenter here claim the indictment does prove she was a NOC. I will reserve judgement, because ‘classified’ can mean a number of different things.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Same Sex Marriage
Next Post: The War on Your Neighbor »

Reader Interactions

55Comments

  1. 1.

    LLeo

    October 28, 2005 at 5:32 pm

    Actually the indictments do prove that Valerie Plame Wilson was NOC. Section 1f of the indictment “Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was Classified”.

    I’ve always wondered why people don’t believe the CIA when they say that Valerie Wilson was Non-Official Cover. It is a by definition issue. Whether she “deserved” to be on the list is a different argument.

  2. 2.

    jg

    October 28, 2005 at 5:42 pm

    Batman Begins rocks.

  3. 3.

    Rick

    October 28, 2005 at 5:55 pm

    John,

    Any word from Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Oberkommando on when we can roll out the borrowed & adapted talking point –“the partisan Democratic prosecutor set a perjury trap?”

    It worked real well for the 1998 inventors.

    Cordially…

  4. 4.

    Mike S

    October 28, 2005 at 5:59 pm

    Today’s events don’t prove that Valerie Plame was a NOC and was outed and national security was irreparably harmed. Today’s events don’t prove that Plame wasn’t a NOC and that nothing bad happened.

    But in the press conference he said the word “maybe” at least once so that means that Bush will be indicted next week.

    He alos said CIA a few times. I’ll let others parse that one.

  5. 5.

    Tim F

    October 28, 2005 at 6:00 pm

    but it got unreadable with all the denial on one side

    I deny that I have ever denied anything.

  6. 6.

    Geek, Esq.

    October 28, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    All sorts of tea leaf reading going on.

    I think we should have a moonbat vs. wingnut death match battle royale.

    We should get a big cage, and in it put the lefties who want to make this about the Iraq war and the righties are obsessed with Joe Wilson.

    And what is it about Joe Wilson that gets Republicans so obsessed with him?

  7. 7.

    Eural

    October 28, 2005 at 6:24 pm

    Not only does “Batman Begins” rock but it gets better everytime you watch it. It was great in the theaters but I’m on viewing #3 on DVD and its been better everytime – fantastic work on every level (with slight mis-steps on the combat/fight sequences).

  8. 8.

    ppGaz

    October 28, 2005 at 6:28 pm

    And what is it about Joe Wilson that gets Republicans so obsessed with him?

    It’s the hair.

  9. 9.

    Bob In Pacifica

    October 28, 2005 at 6:41 pm

    Was national security harmed by the leak? What an impossible question. How about: what were the secret goings-on of Plame and Company and how was that affected by the leak? Impossible to answer because in order to do so you further damage national security. And, of course, it’s not necessarily irrelevant. Sort of like determining whether a bank had been robbed by the amount of money taken out the door.

    I would presume that during the course of his normal daily activities, Scooter didn’t just go batshit and decide to hurt Wilson through revealing Mrs. Wilson’s job. He may have been the first person in the phone chain, but logically he wasn’t the first person in the origin of the idea. That remains to be spelled out, and how well the press and the government asks those questions will determine how far down the road to perdition American democracy has gone.

    The motive for the institution of the White House to try to crush Wilson’s op-ed in such a weird way dissent needs to be flushed out. Arrogance explains why they’d risk it, partly. But the forged Niger documents, the Administration’s “advance to go, collect your war card,” looms larger every day as the underlying reason why questions about pre-war intelligence had to be silenced.

    My guess is that somebody is going to ask Senator Roberts one of these days how much longer he wants to stall investigating the manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war.

  10. 10.

    Brian DeSpain

    October 28, 2005 at 6:56 pm

    When an agent’s cover is blown (NOC or not) a damage assessment is prepared by the CIA. Namely they go through which sources could have been comprimised, did anyone get killed etc. Of course this document is highly classified so we really aren’t going to know if national security is harmed. In fact I would argue it’s a good idea to keep that information classified. So I am none too eager to de-classify the CIA damage assessment.

  11. 11.

    Geek, Esq.

    October 28, 2005 at 6:58 pm

    And Batman Begins absolutely rules. Maybe they should have Joe Wilson play the Joker.

    Valeria can play the Riddler.

  12. 12.

    BumperStickerist

    October 28, 2005 at 6:58 pm

    I’ve always wondered why people don’t believe the CIA when they say that Valerie Wilson was Non-Official Cover. It is a by definition issue. Whether she “deserved” to be on the list is a different argument.

    What Valerie did in the CIA was ‘classified’ at the time of the Wilson trip.

    The fact that she was a former NOC is also classified (and, I’d hope, at a stricter level).

    But those are distinct pieces of information.

    Wilson was the one who revealed that his wife was a former CIA NOC agent. Neither Novak nor Libby did that.

    .

  13. 13.

    Ancient Purple

    October 28, 2005 at 7:07 pm

    Wilson was the one who revealed that his wife was a former CIA NOC agent.

    To whom?

  14. 14.

    Leslie

    October 28, 2005 at 7:16 pm

    What is the violation of Valerie Plame’s civil rights under 1983?

  15. 15.

    ppGaz

    October 28, 2005 at 7:44 pm

    BumperHorsesAss said:

    Wilson was the one who revealed

    Fitzgerald said:

    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

    Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

    The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.

    Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

  16. 16.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    October 28, 2005 at 8:39 pm

    The AP is reporting that Karl Rove is indeed “official A”. I’m curious if the omission of Rove’s name means that they are still seriously considering whether or not to bring charges against him.

  17. 17.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    October 28, 2005 at 9:05 pm

    I’m going to make another prediction. I was already right about Libby getting hit with perjury/obstruction of justice, and I think Rove will be indicted within the next few weeks.

    People aren’t named in indictments when they are still “targets” or “subjects” in the investigation. Apparently Rove’s lawyer sent “relevant” documents to Fitz late last night, therefore Fitz has to review the new evidence and then make a decision. I think Rove is still going indicted…

  18. 18.

    Jon H

    October 28, 2005 at 9:10 pm

    “Was national security harmed by the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity?”

    I’m not sure why this is supposed to matter.

    Interesting to know, perhaps, but kind of irrelevant to the legal issues.

  19. 19.

    Jon H

    October 28, 2005 at 9:16 pm

    “Wilson was the one who revealed that his wife was a former CIA NOC agent. Neither Novak nor Libby did that.”

    Actually, Novak effectively revealed that.

    Plame’s employer of record at the time of the leak was not the CIA or any other government agency. By definition, a CIA agent whose cover is not a government agency is a NOC.

    Novak explicitly revealed it when he named her cover employer on-air.

  20. 20.

    Jon H

    October 28, 2005 at 9:20 pm

    Geek, Esq. writes: “And what is it about Joe Wilson that gets Republicans so obsessed with him?”

    He was called a hero by George H. W. Bush. I believe he was given a medal of some sort, though I could be wrong.

    There’s nothing the GOP hates more than a person who has acted nobly and heroically who isn’t a political ally.

    The Republican idea of a true hero is some cowardly, corrupt, craven schmuck like Grover Norquist or Tom Delay.

  21. 21.

    Jon H

    October 28, 2005 at 9:26 pm

    ” I will reserve judgement, because ‘classified’ can mean a number of different things.”

    True, but remember that the IIPA is written such that the person’s status at the time of the leak need not be ‘NOC’. There’s that 5 year window. Given that, it seems like a distinction without a difference.

    The public records from the early 2000’s listing her employer as something other than a government agency certainly suggest she was a NOC at least as late as that point.

  22. 22.

    scs

    October 28, 2005 at 9:28 pm

    Maybe some of you legal sorts can answer this. Can a person, like Rove, start out saying one thing (a fib) at a grand jury, and then once he suspects the jig is up, say the truth at a later appearance, saying he “forgot” before, and then get off? Why didn’t Libby do the same thing then? Libby seems very clumsy on the whole thing to me, from beginning to end. Perhaps he did have a personal vendetta against Wilson from his Marc Rich days.

  23. 23.

    scs

    October 28, 2005 at 9:35 pm

    And why doesn’t any of the media seem to care who Novak’s first source was?

  24. 24.

    CaseyL

    October 28, 2005 at 9:41 pm

    scs, I suspect the difference between an effective “I forgot” strategy and an ineffective one is the paper trail.

    Libby not only kept voluminous notes, but meticulous ones. He’s also said to be “obsessed” with Wilson. It might be difficult to claim “I forgot” when there’s a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Plus, being caught trying to coach Miller’s testimony couldn’t have helped: it sort of tends to undermine one’s credibility.

    Miller probably tried the same “I forgot” excuse about those earlier meetings with Lbby. In her case, I don’t think confessing they occurred helped her escape indictment; I think what helped her escape indictment was turning on Libby.

    And, as has been pointed out, Rove is still in legal jeopardy – thought I don’t know what that means. I don’t know if Fitzgerald can seek additional indictments with the current GJ dismissed. He says there’s some clean-up work still to do, but stated clearly that nothing very major was still in the pipeline, and indicting Rove would qualify as a major event.

    I really hope this goes to trial. A lot that wasn’t bought out during the GJ deliberations still could during a trial. That, after all, is why we have them.

  25. 25.

    scs

    October 28, 2005 at 9:45 pm

    Yes probably true about the paperwork. Still if he would have just come clean at the end, and said the truth about the VP telling him, could that still be perjury? After all he would be on record telling the truth, even if it was later rather than sooner.

  26. 26.

    p.lukasiak

    October 28, 2005 at 10:26 pm

    Can a person, like Rove, start out saying one thing (a fib) at a grand jury, and then once he suspects the jig is up, say the truth at a later appearance, saying he “forgot” before, and then get off? Why didn’t Libby do the same thing then?

    actually, the indictment indicates that Libby did admit that Cheney had told him about Plame. Libby’s story was that he had forgotten his conversation with Cheney, and heard about Wilson’s wife “as if for the first time” from Tim Russert.

    The problem of course that before the conversation with Russert, Cheney wasn’t the only person who Libby talked to Wilson’s wife about. The “Undersecretary” (Grossman) told him on June 11th or 12th. A “senior officer of the CIA” told him on June 12. On June 14th, Libby spoke with a “CIA briefer” about Wilson and his wife. And on June 23rd, Libby told Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife was CIA.

    In other words, Libby started out lying…..and when confronted with his own notes, changed his story to “I forgot about that conversation.” But he hadn’t forgotten about three other conversations between June 11th and June 14th when he spoke to Miller on June 23rd….

    Perjury. Open and Shut.

  27. 27.

    CaseyL

    October 28, 2005 at 10:32 pm

    Still if he would have just come clean at the end, and said the truth about the VP telling him, could that still be perjury?

    My impression is that whether or not Libby admitted that Cheney revealed Plame’s indentity to him isn’t the basis for all of the perjury charges. Libby’s also charged with lying to the FBI and the GJ.

    The wording sure is interesting, though:

    1. p. 7 – 19. “Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.”

    The mysterious source here is “another government official.”

    2. p. 8 – 21. “On or about July 10 or July 11, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.”

    The sources here are “a senior official in the White House” and “Official A.”

    So there are two, maybe three, unnamed people who revealed Plame’s identity to Libby and then discussed her with Libby and Novak. One is (almost certainly) Cheney; the “senior official” could be Cheney again, and “Official A” is probably Rove.

    Since the GJ is ended, and SFAIK Fitzgerald won’t be calling any more witnesses, those blanks aren’t likely to filled in until the trial.

    (h/t Firedoglake for the indictment excerpts)

  28. 28.

    Walt

    October 28, 2005 at 11:18 pm

    Unanswered questions:

    David Corn was the first to write that Plame was covert. Who was his source?

    Fitzgerald said: “In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.” Did anyone outside the intelligence community know? Any volunteers?

  29. 29.

    Pug

    October 28, 2005 at 11:19 pm

    And what is it about Joe Wilson that gets Republicans so obsessed with him?

    It’s not the hair. It’s the hot wife.

  30. 30.

    Nelson Muntz

    October 28, 2005 at 11:21 pm

    Was national security harmed by the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity?

    Why does this matter? Were Cheney, Libby and Rove somehow authorized to out her and anyone else that worked for Brewster Jennings without notifying the CIA first? If so, how did they get that authorization? The only way this matters is if you are going to try and make some sort of ends justify the means argument.

  31. 31.

    scs

    October 28, 2005 at 11:48 pm

    You know what I’m wondering, maybe Tenet is in on it. After all Cheney was supposed to have gotten it from Tenet. Why wouldn’t Tenet warn Cheney or try to stop Novak when then knew Novak was going to run the story?

  32. 32.

    Sojourner

    October 29, 2005 at 12:03 am

    Why wouldn’t Tenet warn Cheney or try to stop Novak when then knew Novak was going to run the story?

    Because they wanted Novak to run the story. Rove got fired by Bush 41 for leaking information to Novak. You don’t think this was an accident do you?

  33. 33.

    scs

    October 29, 2005 at 12:08 am

    Naah. I’m thinking you’re joshing, but I might have to look it up to be sure.

  34. 34.

    Tim F

    October 29, 2005 at 12:39 am

    Naah. I’m thinking you’re joshing

    So not joshing.

  35. 35.

    Jon H

    October 29, 2005 at 12:41 am

    CaseyL writes; “Since the GJ is ended, and SFAIK Fitzgerald won’t be calling any more witnesses, those blanks aren’t likely to filled in until the trial.”

    Apparently, there’s always a Grand Jury active in DC. They just run their course, and a new jury is seated.

    Fitzgerald can present evidence to the new Grand Jury, if he decides to seek more indictments.

  36. 36.

    Jon H

    October 29, 2005 at 12:43 am

    “Why wouldn’t Tenet warn Cheney or try to stop Novak when then knew Novak was going to run the story?”

    Dunno about Novak, but maybe Tenet assumed Cheney would act responsibly.

  37. 37.

    scs

    October 29, 2005 at 1:11 am

    Rove got fired by Bush 41

    That is so weird. Either Rove didn’t learn his lesson or it was all some big plot somehow.

  38. 38.

    Jcricket

    October 29, 2005 at 1:13 am

    Fitzgerald didn’t say that “nothing major was coming”, he said the substantial work had been done. This can be parsed many ways. I choose to parse it as “I have conducted the bulk of my investigation and at the conclusion of this particular grand jury I have chosen to indict Libby”. Just because he isn’t going to conduct an open-ended fishing expidition doesn’t mean he can’t indict a second or third player for their crimes.

    I would be shocked if “Official A” didn’t get the same treatment as Libby, unless they admitted their involvement and have already plead guilty (or are planning to). Libby could even be indicted for more crimes if others provide additional evidence against him or in the course of the perjury trial he stonewalls to the point where Fitzgerald convenes another grand jury and amends the indictment (it happens, if rarely).

    Reading the indictment and listening the press release, Fitzgerald makes it clear that when the main players in a criminal investigation are lying to you, it makes it difficult to determine what actually happened. So you start with the people who you know are lying. You establish the actual facts. Then, assuming the facts point to a crime, you indict the other criminals. That’s a fairly common way of prosecuting a criminal conspiracy.

    Again, I’m not arguing that Cheney will be indicted, or that there’s a never-ending stream of indictments around the corner. Just that, given the evidence Fitzgerald has amassed and the lengths everyone has clearly gone to lie about their involvement, the signs point to more indictments, not an end to the story.

    Moreover, the press can use these indictments as license to hammer the Bush administration in every press conference. And, if they choose, they can do their own digging into the bigger issue of “Why work so hard to discredit Joe Wilson”, which provides the opening into discussion the rationale for the war itself. Much like Watergate, this crack in the dam provides an opening for the press to run through in investigating everything the Bush administration does.

  39. 39.

    Ancient Purple

    October 29, 2005 at 2:03 am

    Reading the indictment and listening the press release, Fitzgerald makes it clear that when the main players in a criminal investigation are lying to you, it makes it difficult to determine what actually happened. So you start with the people who you know are lying. You establish the actual facts. Then, assuming the facts point to a crime, you indict the other criminals. That’s a fairly common way of prosecuting a criminal conspiracy.

    I would surmise that there is also a bit of theatre here for Fitzgerald. From my perspective, he is trying to force a crucible. Now that Libby is indicted, Fitzgerald really has him over a barrel. I am sure that Fitzgerald would cut a deal with him (i.e. plea bargain) in exchange for information that would establish a violation of the IIPA/Espionage Act (remember his press conference spelling out the pitfalls of the lauguage of those laws).

    If Libby refused to cooperate and it goes to trial, I am willing to be a week’s pay that the two main witnesses called by the prosecution will be Cheney and Rove. Once those two are under oath in the trial (particularly Cheney), Fitzgerald can get the information he needs.

    The only possible fly in the ointment for Fitzgerald would be if Libby pled guilty to all five counts.

    I am not sure Libby has the stomach to be that loyal to Cheney or the administration.

  40. 40.

    HH

    October 29, 2005 at 3:45 am

    Also the blogs who posted wildly inaccurate things in recent weeks about what was going to happen owe their readers an apology.

  41. 41.

    Paddy O'Shea

    October 29, 2005 at 4:56 am

    The only question now is will Scooter squeal. If Fitzgerald offers Libby a deal in exchange for testimony, well, who knows how far this investigation will go? There certainly is no love lost between the indicted former Cheney Chief of Staff and Karl Rove, either. After all, we do know who squealed first.

    I’d say the merry chase has just begun. The clever Mr, Fitzpatrick has sensed the deep fissures with in the White house, and in Mr. Libby he has found his crowbar.

  42. 42.

    Doug

    October 29, 2005 at 9:13 am

    With respect to NOC status, Josh Marshall has this to offer:

    On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

    This is a crucial piece of information. The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where ‘analysts’ come from, but the DO, where the spies, the ‘operatives’, come from.

    Libby’s a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It’s right there in the indictment.

    Late Update: To be clear, there are of course support staff of various sorts in the DO. Not everyone is a field operative or a ‘spy’, certainly not in the colloquial sense of the term. But this is the essential difference between these two branches of the agency. These two guy had every reason to know what they were doing.

  43. 43.

    Slide

    October 29, 2005 at 10:09 am

    A must read on this is Andy McCarthy of National Review Online. No left winger he, and he takes to task his fellow conservatives that are making apologies for Libby and suggesting he didn’t violate the underlying charges. Read the whole thing but here are some interesting snippets:

    Some observations from the wrenching experience of watching TV last night and witnessing people I admire – people who were on the right side of the Clinton wars and have heretofore been strong rule-of-law conservatives – engage in what is a startling defense of the conduct alleged against Scooter Libby.

    The claim that Libby is being smeared with the allegation that he leaked classified information even though he hasn’t been charged with it, and that because he has not been charged he has no way to get his good name back from the said smearing, is specious.

    Like it or not, the mere fact that Plame was employed by CIA is alleged to have been classified. Libby is alleged to have learned this fact in his official capacity. He is alleged to have told it to Judith Miller of the New York Times, a person not entitled to receive classified information (and to have implicitly confirmed it for Matthew Cooper of Time, another person not entitled to receive it). Here on Planet Earth, this is known as leaking classified information.

    Look, if you want to say Libby is not guilty of a leaking crime because he did not have the required mental state, that’s a fair argument. But let’s face it honestly: he is a smart guy and a high public official who appears to have performed all the acts one has to perform to commit a leaking crime. To contend that he is being smeared is absurd.

    And Fitzgerald plainly cut him a break by not charging him with the espionage act. Maybe Libby could have beaten such a charge. But maybe not. Do the people making this smear argument really want to live in a country where a prosecutor charges every conceivable crime that may have been committed? And for no better reason than to rebut a red herring of a talking point?

    .

  44. 44.

    Slide

    October 29, 2005 at 10:22 am

    Will Offical A (Karl Rove) be indicted? Well, take a look at what Fitzgerald said about Governor Ryan (Another one of Fitzgerald’s Offical A) before Ryan got indicted:

    From the AP August 27, 2003, Wednesday

    When asked, Fitzgerald would not comment on whether “Official A” was Ryan.
    But despite branding two of Ryan’s former top aides and his campaign committee as corrupt, Fitzgerald would not say if the investigation will eventually reach Ryan. The vast majority of the corruption uncovered so far happened under his watch when he was secretary of state from 1990 until 1998. The governor has not been accused by prosecutors of any wrongdoing in the past, and Tuesday’s indictments did not include him.

    “I cannot answer that question,” Fitzgerald said when asked about any Ryan involvement. “We cannot discuss people not charged in the indictment.”

    But then we have:

    Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Posted: 2:15 PM EST (1915 GMT)

    CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — Former Gov. George Ryan was indicted Wednesday on federal charges of taking payoffs, gifts and vacations in return for government contracts and leases while he was Illinois secretary of state.

    “The charged conduct by former Gov. Ryan reflects a disturbing violation of trust,” U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in a statement. “Ryan is charged with betraying the citizens of Illinois for over a decade on state business, both large and small.”

    Ryan became the 66th person charged in the investigation; 59 people and his campaign committee have been convicted so far.

    I won’t be so confident if I were Karl (Offical A) Rove.

  45. 45.

    Bob Davis

    October 29, 2005 at 11:46 am

    Karl Rove is either going to testify against Libby in such a way that espionage charges will also be brought, or against someone higher up in the chain (Bush, Cheney) or he will be indicted. He may be indicted or plead guilty as well.

    That is my “Prediction for Today”. I also predict that my “Prediction for Tomorrow” will be different.

  46. 46.

    Barry

    October 29, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    Rick Says:

    “John,

    Any word from Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Oberkommando on when we can roll out the borrowed & adapted talking point—”the partisan Democratic prosecutor set a perjury trap?”

    It worked real well for the 1998 inventors.

    Cordially…”

    Well, let’s see….

    Then: Civil suit having nothing to do with the special prosecutor’s investigation was used for that.

    Now: Prosecutor’s investigation into a matter brings charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to offials in the course of the investigation of that original matter.

    See the difference? The equivalent would be if Clinton perjured himself during testimony about Whitewater, back in 1994 or so.

  47. 47.

    ppGaz

    October 29, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    Excellent work by Slide in this thread.

    Down the road, what will be remembered about this case is what the American people got for their investment in trusting these potatoheads. A government that played it straight with the people and acted in the interest of the country, or a government that treated the country as if it were a contest between frat houses, playing pranks and dirty tricks on the opposition in order to gain or keep power?

    Figuring out which government you have now is not rocket science. You have the frat-boy government, the one that relishes fucking over its enemies and creating and running a perpetual war for political reasons. One that would play footsie with the identity of an intelligence officer for political purposes. One that would gin up a war on false pretenses, and then joke about it later.

  48. 48.

    Rick

    October 29, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    But hey! Partisan and perjury trap is partisan and perjury trap. Sauce, goose, gander. See the similarity? Especially when the 1990’s goose was rapped for obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.

    Think we wingers learned nothing from Lanny Davis?

    Cordially…

  49. 49.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    October 29, 2005 at 1:45 pm

    Also the blogs who posted wildly inaccurate things in recent weeks about what was going to happen owe their readers an apology.

    If all those bloggers posted their apologies at the same time, the Internet would crash.

  50. 50.

    ppGaz

    October 29, 2005 at 2:06 pm

    But hey! Partisan and perjury trap is partisan and perjury trap. Sauce, goose, gander. See the similarity? Especially when the 1990’s goose was rapped for obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.

    Sauce? Yeah, I’d say definitely, you are on the sauce. Either that or you need a complete neurological workup.

  51. 51.

    Sojourner

    October 29, 2005 at 3:49 pm

    But hey! Partisan and perjury trap is partisan and perjury trap. Sauce, goose, gander. See the similarity? Especially when the 1990’s goose was rapped for obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.

    Yeh and they both involved perjury about national security.

    Wait, that’s not right. How are they similar again?

  52. 52.

    Chris Johnson

    October 29, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    If Rove is indicted that means the process has really stopped. Fitz is ‘dealing up’- holding out the capacity to spare Rove as an inducement to get Rove to rat on- totally sell down the river- higher-ups. I think he’s looking to get either Cheney, Bush himself, or both.

    Rove will crack- not even crack, that implies he’d lose control, more like ‘rat on everybody and f**k them completely’- only when he is absolutely convinced that his higher-ups are going to lose all their power, and not before. Until then, it’s business as usual- how can anyone think this guy is going to resign? I don’t believe he has the loyalty that, say, Haldeman had for Nixon. Everyone in that crowd is strictly out for #1…

  53. 53.

    SLE

    October 29, 2005 at 5:21 pm

    Why wouldn’t the most complete resolution to all these issues be obtained by our public officials coming forward voluntarily and making true and complete public statements on what they did and what they know?

    Is our society so jaded that we feel we have no right to expect honesty and transparency in our government? Shouldn’t we expect our officials to be willing, even eager to come forward and tell the public the truth of the matter?

    This administration has been hiding behind “no comment” long after it became apparent that “no comment” meant “we find it inconvenient and possibly injurious to ourselves to comment”.

    I say: defend your good name and your conduct or resign. Full stop.

  54. 54.

    Steve S

    October 30, 2005 at 1:54 am

    Nice of John to downplay the charges.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice says:
    October 28, 2005 at 7:25 pm

    […] Fitzgerald and Libby […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Albatrossity - The Birds of May 3
Image by Albatrossity (7/31/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Harrison Wesley on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:40pm)
  • Jackie on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:39pm)
  • Peke Daddy on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:21pm)
  • mrmoshpotato on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:19pm)
  • Jackie on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:18pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!