Take a deep breath. Today's deadline was really just artificial.

[Stinky The Clown]

The pressure on today was the expiration of the Grand Jury term. It does not at all equate to the end of Prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation. That is absolute, irrefutable fact.

Now the speculation:

If Libby alone is indicted, consider it just a shot across the bow.

The prosecutor's web site is not a sign of an end game.

The rumors of the prosecutor leasing more space in DC is not the sign of an end game. Neither is it needed if only one trial is anticipated.

The only way to nail a high government official who has the full power of the government, and many laws, to shield their activity, is to dig deep and to dig relentlessly. That takes time and it is a safe assumption that the time needed is congruent with Grand Jury terms only in a perfect world; our world is very much imperfect.

The court of public opinion is very much against this maladministration. There are really no likable, sympathetic figures in the entire bunch. These people are very easy to hate. The last one who was at all 'likable' was Colin Powell. Public pressure and interest in finding the facts will continue to be strong. Everyone loves to watch a train wreck. To see the crash. To smell the blood.

Overall, this whole episode is hardly over.

In fact, it may just be starting. Recall that Prosecutor Fitzgerald has been at this for well over two years. It is only very recently that it has been on the radar of anyone not deeply involved in the blogosphere or living inside the Beltway. This is now the topic of chat on Tuesday mornings in Ralph's barber shop over on Main Street.

The fact that even one indictment comes down shows there was malfeasance. Consider it the smoke. And even the most deluded of our citizens knows that smoke means fire.

So I'm gunna just take a deep breath and see what happens. Drawing parallels with scandals past is fruitless. Each is different. In my personal opinion, this one, as John Dean has long been saying, is worse than Watergate. And if that's true, it will take longer to be done.

[rosesaylavee]

1. Thanks - this is what I needed to read today.

And what a great word "maladministration". Is it one of yours?

:hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Nope, the term's not mine.

I have no idea who started it, but it has been in wide use, at least here on DU, for ages.

[Dudley_DUright]

40. to be used interchangeably with

misadministration. :-)

[Kurovski]

47. I'll take the credit. I've used it since some time in 2001

here at DU. I had never seen it prior to that, and thought it was fitting. BushCo is a pretty sick and malevolent bunch.

Ain't I something? :eyes:

Hey, by the way, nice thread you got here Husb2Sparkly. :-)

[Ilsa]

2. "The prosecutor's web site is not a sign of an end game."

Amen; it is a sign of the beginning, I think, as do many of the talking heads. I think Fitz is just getting warmed up.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. Ah, the bloodlust, the bloodlust

People just want vindication for all the crap that Fuckface and his thugs have pulled since 2000. Can't blame them.

I think it's all come to a head with this matter, the Fitzgerald investigation. What's overlooked is that the law Fitzgerald was given a mandate to investigate is a very, very - I think impossible - one to prove broken. That's the key here, I believe.

So, what the investigation turns on, perhaps, is the testimony, the attempts to mislead, the possible perjury? I don't know, because no one knows, and it's all speculation.

It's the low-level, uninformed frenzy that's currently sweeping people away, without any reliable information from the one source who can provide it - Fitzgerald - and that, I fear, is what's going to cause as big a crash as did the 2000 and 2004 Presidential "elections" for a lot of people who've pinned their hopes for revenge on this investigation.

I know what I wish would happen, but, frankly, I'm not optimistic.

[tnlefty]

6. Forgive me, but I am still laughing very hard at this:

Fuckface and his thugs...hahaha, and from a lawyer.:toast:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. heh heh heh

You didn't have to ask who I meant, did ya?

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Hiya Lefty, ya babe!

Lissen ...... that law ...... yeah, I know its a hard one to prove. But isn't it also true that, if in the course of his investigation of that incident, he finds evidence of other, related crimes, he has an obligation to follow those, too? Or must he just report them (to whom?) and move on, leaving those 'found' crimes for others?

That part's always been a a bit confusing to me.

:burp: ..... oooops. S'cuze me. :hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. He goes to the judge,

as I believe he already has done, and gets the mandate expanded if the initial mandate is too limited, based upon evidence uncovered during the investigation.

Sure,that's how it works. Remember the famous utterings of Alexander Butterfield about the tapes in the White House, and what THAT started?

I don't think this investigation is over, as you so rightly pointed out, and yet, with no information coming forth - for which I'm really grateful - we know nothing right now.

See what happens when you have hoagies for breakfast? Burp, indeed.

I'm staying with thick-cut farmers' pepper bacon, a rustic Tuscan bread toasted and buttered with Defendi butter, and a large bottle of tequila.

It's Friday. Isn't it?

And, of course, there will be beer:

[Stinky The Clown]

20. I had on a white wig and a dress this morning ......

.... and also a push-up bra ..... shhhhhhh .... don't tell Sparkly about my proclivities .............

I ate cake for breakfast.

http://daily.greencine.com.nyud.net:8090/archives/marie-antoinette.jpg

[Sparkly]

24. I heard that.

[loudsue]

36. LOL!! You're Busted He-Babe!!

:rofl: You guys are Plamed-out! I wish Fitz would let us open our presents NOW!!!!


:kick::kick::kick:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

39. Please, please, let him go

He looks so damn cute, just let him.

Please?

That's a wig he's wearing, right?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. Your secret is safe with me, Marie

I'm wearing the same thing, only with waders.

Old Yeller is SO twisted ...............

[electropop]

14. The laws that were apparently broken are not that hard to prove.

It is illegal to reveal the identity of an undercover operative, and it is illegal to reveal classified information, if you have a clearance. Both are pretty straightforward. I have a clearance and have read the rules. Reveal stuff and you risk jail. Not that complicated.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. I respectfully disagree

It's a very difficult law to prove violated. It goes to intent, which is always complicated.

Reading the law is the least of it. You also have to consider the legislative history, the judicial interpretations (if any exist), and the application.

Rules are easy to read, but when it comes to proving that the law has been broken, it's a whole different matter. Fitzgerald has had a very hard job to do.

[electropop]

17. Reading may not count,

But when I read it, I didn't see anything about intent. There was the requirement for knowledge that the info is classified, but I think "(SECRET NOFORN)" stamped on the paragraph would pretty well cover that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. Are you a lawyer?

Because, if you are, you'd understand that the first step is reading it.

After that, it gets pretty complicated for non-lawyers to understand.

[electropop]

22. Oops, sorry, "intentionally" is in there.

Not in an abstact sense though; to me it's pretty obviously meant as "as opposed to accidentally."

The relevant quote:

" Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

To me, it seems obvious that if you see a (SECRET NOFORN) paragraph identifying an agent, then you discuss that agent with reporters, you have met the "knowing ...that the Uinited States is taking affirmative measures to conceal" criterion, and you have met the "intentionally discloses" criterion too. Hard to say "unintentional" unless you were talking in your sleep.

No, I'm not a lawyer, but unless this is some kind of Bizarro-world Bush-English, it doesn't look that mysterious to me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. Reading the law

is an adventure in Bizarro World, believe me, if you're not a lawyer.

I know what it looks like to you, but that's simply the starting point. Beyond that, there is a whole world that, if you're smart and lucky, you'll never have to discover.

Honestly, it looks so cut-and-dried, but, the reason Fitzgerald spent two years investigating this matter is, on its face, evidence of how terribly complicated the enforcement of this law can be.

Lawyers do not see the world the same way non-lawyers do. It's just a fact of our training and experience.

[Clovis Sangrail]

43. INAL either, but....

I think the finicky bit it is
"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent..."

Right or wrong, I'm guessing lawyers could fairly easily hinge an arguement on that.
They will say the NONFORN paragraph contained other information their clients knew was classified and that information was the presumed NONFORN target.
Sketchy, but that opens up intent to question, without which IIPA falls apart.

I'm wondering why there has been so little discussion regarding the federal security clearance nondisclosure agreements.
It looks to be fairly easy to show violation of this by Libby and Rove, and while it may not carry prison time, it would most likely result in revoking of security clearances and loss of employment.

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it...

[AllyCat]

23. electropop, OLL--here is an interesting article in Milwaukee's weekly

The author (don't know his/her authority, sorry) "handicaps" the various charges and the likelihood each could be part of the indictments. Hope you find it interesting too. I'd love to hear your comments about it.

http://www.shepherd-express.com/10_20_05/newsandviews.htm

[electropop]

27. Thanks Ally!

Interesting article, and very thorough. Maybe I'm just dense, but (see my quote from the IIPA above), it just doesn't look that complicated to me. If you have a clearance (I assume top WH staffers do), and you see classified info, and you know it (ie it's stamped SECRET NOFORN on the relevant paragraph), and you chat about it with reporters, which part of IIPA do you not meet?

On the other hand, I assume Fitz is smart enough to cover his bases and use every charge with any chance of sticking.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. Anything could be part of the investigation,

if the mandate is interpreted broadly enough.

To non-lawyers, it looks very simple. But, in fact, it's not.

As I've said a thousand or so times here on DU, no one knows anything.

Fitzgerald has run an immaculate investigation, absolutely leakproof and solid, and until he puts forth information, we all know nothing.

We know nothing. That's all we know.

[Straight Shooter]

42. And as Thelma said to Louise,

"Wow. The law is some tricky shit."

[yodermon]

32. Please cite.

You say "the law Fitzgerald was given a mandate to investigate", presumably the IIPA.

I say (or more appropriately, James B. Comey says) Fitz has a mandate to investigate ALL federal laws.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

What is the legal definition of "related to" in this context?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. There you go

You isolated the issue very nicely. That's the kind of stuff you find on law school exams, and that's how it works.

The rest, as you might surmise, lies in the interpretation, and that question you asked is at the heart of what defines the mandate. Accordingly, it's always wise for the counsel to check with the Court to make sure he's not exceeding a mandate that might, in another, future venue, be interpreted as "overly broad," and, arguably, invalid.

It's all in the language, and, after almost thirty years of living this life, I never tire of it. Its beauty and mystery still have me under that spell.

Well done.

[yodermon]

37. and Fitz met with the Judge

for 45 minutes yesterday. Maybe he was verifying his mandate wrt the indictments he wants to submit to the GJ.

Oh *smack* there I go speculatin' again ;)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. It's irresistible, isn't it?

Me, I'm going to DSW for some retail therapy. I have two $25 certificates, and the need for some extraordinary boots.......

http://www.dswshoe.com/

[BonnieJW]

4. Can you post the link to his web site?

I neglected to bookmark it.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I don't have it, but it has been posted here on DU ....

..... maybe a brazillian times.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. Here ya go..........

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

[julialnyc]

5. Nominated!

Great post!

[Career Prole]

11. I look on today's business as a groundbreaking ceremony.

Gold-plated shovel with a ribbon on the handle and all.
Today is a symbolic spadeful.

After the groundbreaking ceremony is over and the dignitaries and press depart, the shirts come off, the hardhats go on, and the earthmoving machinery rumbles to life.

I'm looking forward more to what gets dug up after today...

[liberalla]

45. I like your analogy...

"Gold-plated shovel with a ribbon on the handle and all.
Today is a symbolic spadeful.

After the groundbreaking ceremony is over and the dignitaries and press depart, the shirts come off, the hardhats go on, and the earthmoving machinery rumbles to life.

I'm looking forward more to what gets dug up after today..."

Me too!

[Popol Vuh]

13. I like thinking about this

Lets say by some shit luck these pricks catch a technicality or something. Yes that would suck, but the damage done in the court room of public opinion still gives Democrats so much advantage to gain back control of congress. Then.....BAM! I predict Representative John Conyers to submit articles of impeachment for the Downing Street minutes.

So in my opinion Bush is almost certainly checkmated one way or the other.

[catmandu57]

19. Only the beginning

That song keeps running through my head, because that's what this is only the beginning. I'd love to see it drug out further and further, before the end the people will be so pissed at the reptiles who stole the government from us, it'll be the end of the republican party as we know it.
Hey Old leftie thanks for bringing ther kitty back.

[wryter2000]

21. Thanks

Let's also remember that the Wilsons may sue. That would mean another entire round of discovery.

One very useful thing I plan to get out of this, even if nothing else comes of it, is to evaluate the various sources I've been listening too. Obviously, the Washington Note was off base.

I generally make it a policy only to use blogs as a source with people I know who agree with me in general. That way, I don't have to eat my words if the bloggers turn out to be incorrect.

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. I needed that. Thank you.

[mirandapriestly]

29. There's supposed to be a press conference from Fitzgerald in a couple hour

I think it is at 1pm Washington time, maybe there will be some enlightenment at that time.

[mirandapriestly]

30. dupe, sorry

[mirandapriestly]

31. computer's acting funny, dupe. nt

[babylonsister]

34. Thanks, H2S. I also needed to read this, and agree.

We're putting much faith in Fitz, but I do believe he's up to it.

[dogday]

41. I read the Fitzgerald just leased larger office space in NY

Does that sound like a prosecutor who is going away? Sounds to me he is staying and needing a lot of space for what is to come.

[autorank]

44. Oh, now this brings a smile to my face;). "The end of the beginning.."

What's the rush is right. I read through the indictment. It is extremely thorough, and just marches over Libby like the USC Trojan Band over the end zone as the enter the stadium.

If I were Scooter Libby, I'd have great fear that this indictment represented the maximum, that it was time to think about rooming with some "crack lord" at Marion Federal, that I might as well think about my options.

Then, I'd say to myself, "Hey Scooter, you turned once before, you used to be an anti-war Democrat, then you sucked up to Cheney. Why not turn again and become an anti-Cheney Republican? Beats a $1.25 million fine and 10 or so in the Federal Penitentiary."

Scooter isn't all that deep, he's all about 'turning.'

Great post and nice snag on the main page.

[liberalla]

46. Enjoyed reading this!

Thanks much.

[Alamom]

48. Thanks.....good stuff, indeed. n/t