I Am Increasingly Concerned About the Plame Investigation, But. . .

not because I want to see Karl Rove convicted.

I am concerned because the Repugs are framing the issue as being solely a criminal investigation. The larger messages are fading as time goes by and that message is too important to fade.

The overall issue, of course, is that the methods employed to "sell" us on the war in Iraq were amoral and unethical. Another critical issue is that no administration official should ever feel free to disclose certain information. Rove's actions were over the line and utterly inexcusable. Neither he nor anyone else is free to disclose information on a CIA agent and there should be consequences even if the narrow definitions of the IIPA are not met. We all know about the nondisclosure agreements. No Republicans are even acknowledging this and that is a terrifying fact in and of itself.

I am shocked and appalled. In fact I see their failure as another critical issue. There should be consequences for their blatant partisanship on this issue, too.

And then we have the issue of what to do with Rove, Libby, and anyone else who engaged in this behavior either knowingly or negligently. I do not approve of Rove's methods, although one cannot argue they are effective. I think he steals elections by depriving we, the people, of a true hearing on the issues. Perhaps his methods are not illegal, but they are nonetheless wrong.

(The Republican Party: party of values my ass <spits>)

Finally we have the "party of values" lying and covering up this transgression, as well as the overall issues about going to war. Lying isn't wrong in their Manichaean cosmology unless it involves lying about one's own sex life. If it's just a minor matter, like national security or going to war, it seems they think anything goes.

This just cannot stand. They can't have free reign to do these things and I'm afraid they will if only Fitzgerald finds that Rove didn't violate this narrowly drafted IIPA. And I'm afraid this is a trough for the Bush administration in terms of credibility and all of the other negatives coming out in the polls. We have short memories.

Anyone have anything to quell my fears?

The most important thing is indictments and convictions -- the more, the better. Everything follows from there.

The storyline about Iraq will come after that. Eventually, it will be taken for granted, although as usual, too late to do any good. But it's a lot harder for the administration to spin the justice system than a purely political scandal.

But the law is narrowly written and there may be room for no indictments. I don't want to engage in the vaguaries of the law (I am a lawyer) because I don't want to lend any credence to them. However it is conceivable that the IIPA was not violated, and that Rove didn't lie to the Grand Jury about it.

If there is an indictment they can't spin that (I don't think). But they can spin it if there is no indictment and that's what worries me. They shouldn't get away with this and it shouldn't even be a partisan issue in the first place.

Spinning this is a horrible precedent.

I am also convinced that Fitzpatrick will get some convictions even if the Rove-Libby leak did not violate the 1982 law. He has more arrows in his quiver than that. Everything I've read about his history suggests he will be successful. And the grand jury is sympathetic.

So what if no one is indicted?

but from what we know about the investigation, no one in the process on either side is acting like it's a dry hole. To me, it's more a question of who, how many, what the charges are, and whether indictments will result in convictions.

And also whether there will be a backlash like 1998. I suspect not, but the Dems have to play it right and the media has been very willing to frame news the way the White House wants.

We shouldn't for general reasons, but also because there are more baskets here. That's exactly what I'm pointing out.

And of course that is their strategy. That is what Rove was banking on all along--that his odds of defeating this issue would be maximized if he could manage to hinge the whole deal on the narrowly drawn IIPA.

Since he doesn't control the investigation he has nothing to lose with this strategy.

I would like to see a contingency strategy. He should play the odds that he's not indicted. We should figure out how we can improve those odds, and we should be in a position of strength wherein our fate doesn't depend on Fitzgerald.

In short, the criminal law aspects of this are maybe 50 - 50 at best. The breaches of civil law, like for example the breaches of the non-disclosure agreements, are far more in our favor. Rove has already, in effect, conceded that he's breached his non-disclosure agreements.

We are in the right here. We shouldn't concede that.

one way or the other. Fitzpatrick is better at this than you or I. It will develop in its own time.

And I think the odds of criminal convictions are much better than you do. Look what they got Martha Stewart on -- and she didn't even commit a crime in the original stock sale.

her conviction were not ludicrous. To me that just shows that no one can predict any of this.

was obvious political revenge, it's hard to argue with the verdict. Unfortunately, Martha lied and obstructed justice. It was not only stupid to lie to the investigators, it was completely unnecessary because the original trade turned out to be legitimate.

Here's hoping that the Bush gang will be even stupider. From the discrepancies that have surfaced, I'm willing to bet they already have been.

stupid. Her lawyers should be disbarred if they had any part in advising her as to the way she acted.

My fear is that the Bush gang isn't stupid. My fear is based on the fact that they are raking it in as fast as they can.

Yes, I have grown more cynical over the past few weeks but that's another story.

it seems to have been illegal under the 1917 law, as much as I dislike that law in other ways. Fitzgerald should be able to prove who made the leak. There have already been inconsistencies in testimony, which should lead to obstruction of justice charges. And if there's coordination, that raises the specter of RICO.

I don't get the feeling Fitzgerald is going to pull any punches. Indictments are just the beginning -- even resignations won't make them go away. As far as I can see, this is going to drag on one way or another into the 08 campaign. Even if there are no convictions, it's going to seriously cut into Bush's political capital and ability to get what he wants.

to discredit this administration's way of doing business (because I think it is corrupt) and to see that justice is served.

that had been set in the courts where they threw the book at someone simply because he revealed 'sensitive' government information, not even classified/top secret information. He said that it would be very difficult to avoid an indictment on that count given that precedent (sorry, I can't remember the name of the case or the # of the law that was broken, but it was in one of Dean's articles at findlaw.com recently). He also said that the fact that Bush and Cheney had both hired non-government private lawyers in this case indicates that they do have information pertinent to the case that they don't want to reveal. Starr had already decimated attourney/client priviledge in the Clinton trial for government lawyers and their clients, so Jr. was forced to lawyer up with someone who would allow him to plead the fifth and not reveal anything, Cheney too. Makes them look guilty as sin, which of course we all know they are.

away with murder. All their successes lead to more dis-ease, dis-patriotism, dis-truth, and absolute, treachorous abuse against the country and its citizens. More people have to wake up. I see people sitting around for hours drinking coffee or alchohol and accepting everything this admin does. Their disdain and distance is used as a cowardly act.

What is happening to us is our own fault.

If they want us to spy on each other person by person - we can learn as much as possible and explain the crimes to each other - person by person.

But we need to get the crime out of the election system. All the good work of the Conyers, Waxmans, WIlsons, bloggers is nothing if the vote is stolen again.

They couldn't do any of it if we didn't let them.

cabal.

We have no standing. We can't bring suit. It is the exclusive realm of the criminal justice system and only a judge can mete out punitive measures absent some other statutory vehicle.

The fact that they don't focus on the truth is no excuse for us. The criminal chips should fall where they may. We can hope that as those chips fall they will aid us, the American people (not just Democrats). But we can't rely on that.

The MSM and the rest of the Bush cabal should bear the wrath of the American people. In this particular case I see no reason why leaking the identity of a CIA agent, by any administration official, should be acceptable under any circumstances. Nor should it be acceptable to Stonewall or obfuscate for anyone who engages in this utterly unacceptable behavior.

..trick....

Remember, even when it was plain for all to see just how dirty the criminals in the Nixon whitehouse were, they fought til the bitter end....These thugs will not give up what they stole so easily....they will have to thrown out on their arses....

If they find no reason to indict, I will be confident that the system worked. I don't think that vindicates anything though and I don't like the idea of having so much riding on this indictment. Criminal misconduct is only a small portion of the problem here.

What do you think the net result will be if they don't indict?

...the bush cabal will have been able to withstand a federal investigation and come out smelling like a rose...they stole the 2000 election, they rigged the '04 election, why in the world would anyone realistically think that an emboldened rethuglican party wouldn't do the same in '06 and '08?

As I've said, I think some people have too many eggs in this basket.

We don't know that violations of the IIPA are the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation. Fitzgerald may be investigating other violations.

Yes, there is an older criminal statute that must apply and there is perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. I suppose RICO could be invoked if there is more than one incident of racketeering.

But I'm not assuming anything, other than the fact that there is a chance that the Grand Jury would conclude that they don't have enough to go on. That is possible, and I don't think it correct or appropriate to consider that a vindication.

Our elected officials shouldn't be disclosing this information, and they shouldn't be Stonewalling this kind of breach. I'm not sure what punishment is appropriate for this, but it sure as Hell ought to be more than a slap on the wrist.

And I think it would be a travesty if when all the smoke cleared, the conclusion would be that there was no impropriety. Why have non-disclosure agreements? If this is the precedent they aren't worth the paper they're written on.

:eyes:

Connecting the dots on all of the ways Bush Inc.
sold, lied, propogandized, covered up, endangered,
killed, decimated budget surpluses to invade
Iraq is the Pulitzer, the Emmy, the Oscar, the
story (aside from the truth about 9/11) of
the century, if not in the nation's history.