Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Plamegate refresher - Lawrence O'Donnell and the redacted 8 pages

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:33 PM
Original message
A Plamegate refresher - Lawrence O'Donnell and the redacted 8 pages

07.07.2005 Lawrence O'Donnell

The One Very Good Reason Karl Rove Might Be Indicted

-snip-
In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues' order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges "in the light of reason and experience." Tatel actually found that reason and experience "support recognition of a privilege for reporters' confidential sources." But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to "the gravity of the suspected crime."

Judge Tatel's opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to "having carefully scrutinized (the prosecutor's) voluminous classified filings."

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case "which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent." Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters' shield law -- but in the end, he couldn't bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he "might have" let Cooper and Miller off the hook "were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security."

Tatel's colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutors secret filings as he is. One simply said "Special Counsel's showing decides the case."

All the judges who have seen the prosecutors secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've heard Plame's outing resulted
in people getting killed. And of course it destroyed the covert operation, which was monitoring the proliferation of nuclear arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bernardo de La Paz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Extremely serious crime harmful to national security.
Not just the outing of an agent.
Not just the danger to the agent's contacts.

It is also the shutting down of the unit that was looking for real WMDs, not the faux ones that the administration "knew" were there, but can't find or plant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Recommended.
As usual, Larry is on target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I hope he has some more nuggets of info on McLaughlin Group
tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I love it when he embarrasses that fat rethug Blankley.
Sweeeett.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Last week, Blankley was talking about how we may have to raise taxes.
How many times has hell frozen over in the past few weeks? I've lost count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. I saw that too!
Raising taxes??? OMG!
Yes, things are THAT bad.


I can't stand Blankley. He's grotesque.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. "Key question ... why did these administration officials lie so overtly"
fyi....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Various posts regarding Judge Tatel contained in the above referenced threads.


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is a core opinion! Very important.
Recommended.

There's one thing that all these reporters are not saying. It's the following:

If Rove had no clearance to know of Plame's status, then it was somebody else who violated the Intelligence Identities Act. And that somebody would have to be somebody who *did* have the need to know her status. The fact that Plame was exposed speaks loudly that the Act was violated by somebody. Fitz might be focussing not only on the leakers to the press, but may also be after the perp who furnished the information to Rove and Libby.

Two people come to my mind. Condi Rice and John Bolton. Both probably had the clearance (Condi certainly so). Both had the opportunity and connections to do the dirty deed. And both might be able to be charged under the Act if they revealed the identity to Rove, or Libby, or others with the intent to take political revenge on Joseph Wilson by exposing his wife's status at the CIA.

Now the West Wing seems to be intent on playing rhetoric games with this. Claiming that they didn't reveal her name, and bullshit like that. They're looking for picky technicalities with which to extricate themselves from very serious charges. Whether this works or not is up to some judge or jury.

I think the West Wing is in serious hunker down mode right now. They released Miller because she can do no more harm and may be able to do some good later on. There's no quid pro quo there. It's just a strategic move on the part of Libby, et al. They're merely helping a reporter who seems to have a penchant for supporting the White House.

When the indictments hit, there will be some surprises. Fitz has kept his hand close to his chest. There have been almost zero leaks from the investigation. (Where's today's Deep Throat? Hell, where's today's Woodstein?) Maybe a week from today we'll know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
10. We have here, IMHO, more than a violation of the
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 02:42 PM by rateyes
intelligence identities act. We have a violation of the Espionage Act. US Code 18, Sec. 792,7 93, & 794.

It covers everybody who passed classified info to unauthorized sources. In other words, reporters, administration officials, all who knew but didn't tell about the leak.

Very serious stuff which shut down a whole undercover operation. Valerie Plame wasn't the only one put in danger.

On edit: Freeper heads are about to explode.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Agreed
I always forget about that one. (Espionage Act.) Everybody's always talking about the IIA. There's also treason, but that may be impossible to satisfy.

I think we can't ignore the lesser charges here. It's been over two years since the President said he would investigate this and hold the perpetrators accountable. We suspected then, and we know now, that that meant that the cover-up was beginning. Just the fact that the WH has said nothing about this means that obstruction of justice has occurred, undoubtedly compounded by conspiracy. Then there's perjury both in court and probably also before Congress, plus the requisite conspiracy to suborn. The more one thinks about this, one wonders how many trees will have to be cut down to print all the possible indictments.

It's breath-taking. I can't wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. kick and recommended
thanks for posting :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. O'Donnell kicks ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. C*H*E*N*E*Y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. me too
I've always thought it was Cheney that started this whole mucking fess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. Wonder what's in those 8 missing pages ? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
16. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. Thank you for this "refresher." I needed to hear it. Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kicked and recommended! Excellent post. Thanks. .......n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
20. this seems very much worth a kick
so,
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC