Indictments Pool

Parent Cafe
21

<p>Well, they knocked off for the day at lunchtime, with no announcements. The announcer on CBS News sounded like he was about to cry. Here’s some interesting reading to help take the edge off.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=4&issue=20051024[/url]”>http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=4&issue=20051024&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

22

<p>So how stinky is this really going to be? Amusingly stinky as a Frat Boy mishap or ugly stink like IranContra???</p>

23

<p>This is a frat stunt version of Iran-Contra. And the very amateurishness of it says a lot about how poorly we’ve been served by the CIA in recent years.</p>

24

<p>No indictments today. Betting pool still open. Odds on no indictments have changed to 9 to 4. But odds on Chaney have gone up (one theory is that the extra time was used today to make the legal case against him.)</p>

<p>This IS exciting!</p>

25

<p>I don’t know, some may find this exciting…I just find it disgusting.</p>

<p>It is made even more disgusting by the holier-than-thou radical right trying to defend this mess. Frankly, they should just shut up and let the system work. After all, it was good enough for them with Clinton. </p>

<p>You live by the gun, you die by the gun.</p>

<p>All I can recall is while the Clinton Whitehouse was tied up in knots over his impeachment, al Qaeda was plotting the twin towers attacks and no one was paying attention. </p>

<p>What do you suppose is going on now that should be paid attention to?</p>

26

<p>

Weenie, you and I are in agreement…I find this disgusting too.

Bingo. Right again.

Incredible. You continue to read my mind, and channel my thoughts.

Good question, soul sister…here’s what the presidents says:

And so he is. So we can both sleep soundly.</p>

27

<p>Hoist by his own petard…that is what I am thinking.</p>

28

<p>“It is made even more disgusting by the holier-than-thou radical right trying to defend this mess. Frankly, they should just shut up and let the system work. After all, it was good enough for them with Clinton.”</p>

<p>Tony Blankley, in the Washington Times, put it well in his column today:</p>

<p>“But if any of their actions warrant criminal conviction, the president and his allies would be grievously ill-advised to minimize such criminal conduct or disparage the prosecutor. Perjury, if that is the charge, is a very serious felony. All the more so when committed by a person in high office.
Neither the president nor conservatives generally should raise the Clinton defense. Any Republican who measures his integrity by the standards of Bill Clinton (and his disreputable apologists) is unfit for public office.
If the worst happens, the president should make a clean break with such conduct – and such people.”</p>

<p>Let’s see what happens tomorrow! (Short World Series - at least there’s something still worth betting on. ;))</p>

29

<p>hazmat: I must confess that I had to look up the word “petard.” Thanks for the good chuckle.</p>

30

<p>If it involves Cheney, I would think they would wait until the last moment to get the stock market closed for the weekend, while things get sorted out. I will take no glee in the idea that a traitor is in the White House, or that this classified information was leaked to defend the liars who intentionally used faulty information to turn the USA into a protagonist nation. This administration has been a black spot on this great nations history.</p>

31

<p>A protagonist nation…what an interesting construct. I mean, it sounds OK to me, I’ve just never heard it put that way before. I like it. Relax, Mr B, there are no traitors in the White House, despite what Al Franken tells you. This is political warfare, pure and simple, and the traitors are elsewhere. Hopefully, they’ll be be exposed in this investigation.
I caught a bit of Ahnold’s speech via a clip from C-Span—I thought he was great, talking about ridding the CA public school system of its “bad apples” and “dancing lemons.” The man’s a poet.</p>

32

<p>Driver, you crack me up…sometimes I actually think you believe yourself. Here is Arnold at his best. I highly recommend this to all.</p>

<p><a href=“arnoldsneighborhood.com —”>arnoldsneighborhood.com —;

<p>If you read the legislative analyst report sent to all California voters you would notice that like him…it isn’t what he says it is.</p>

33

<p>Number of Republicans who get their knickers in a twist about Clinton lying about sex: almost all of them. </p>

<p>Number of Republicans who get their knickers in a twist about principals in this corrupt administration engaging in perjury and obstruction of justice in pursuit of the politics of vendetta while compromising both national security and the allegations designed to buffalo the nation into war: virtually none of them. Well, that’s not quite true. GOP support for Bush is sinking under the 80 percent mark as the smarter of the rats start abandoning ship.</p>

<p>I really hope a second grand jury is empaneled to pursue the chain of events where it looks exceedingly likely where agents of the American government asked the Italians to come up with material that could be used to justify the invasion of Iraq and said material echoed all over the place, serving as the underlying basis of “intelligence” estimates for both the Brits and us.</p>

34

<p>(I think Driver and Weenie are having a cyber affair - unless they are the same person…! - but that’s Sinner’s Alley yakyak … lwet’s get back to the topic at hand…)</p>

<p>All I hope is that the stress level is amped up high enough to bring on a heart attack - not a deadly one but certainly more, much more than mildly disabling and you all know of whom I speak…</p>

35

<p>Remember everyone, indicted is not convicted. This circus has a long run ahead. </p>

<p>Could one of you legal beagles (or attentive civics student) explain to me how a grand jury works? Is there actually a jury (i.e. 12 citizens)? If yes, when and how did they get chosen? Who’s the judge? If there are indictments will this same jury and judge decide the verdicts?</p>

<p>What I find most fascinating is the situation at the NYTimes. Has a newpaper ever so viciously attacked a reporter WHO IS STILL EMPLOYED by the paper? What a mess is right. I’d love to hear what Sulzburger’s position is.</p>

<p>And here’s another question for those of you who have been following the minutia of this case: The name “Valerie Flame” (sic) was jotted in her notebook but it was not the same section as her notes of her conversation with Libby. What section did it appear in? In what context?</p>

36

<p>No indictments for revealing the name of a CIA per se. I’ll bet Rove and Libby will both be indicted for revealing classified information, perjury, and obstruction of justice. Both will resign, both will be convicted (at least on one count), and both will be pardoned by George W. around Christmas 2006, during the pendency of their appeals.</p>

37

<p>I seem to be stuck at 666 posts. How beastly of me!</p>

38

<p>Momrath, a little info on this particular grand jury from this morning’s WaPo.

</p>

39

<p>so it looks as if GWB has moved into “salvage mode” …getting ready for the next problem.</p>

40

<p>Momrath here are a couple of excerpts regarding Judy Miller. The article is definitely worth a read.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9742110/site/newsweek/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9742110/site/newsweek/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"The righteous response is that such stories should not be made public until we can report them from the bottom up, not just the top down. That’s what Craig Pyes believes, and one of many reasons he wrote a scathing memo to the Times editors back in 2000, when he was forced to team up with Judy on a reporting project about Al Qaeda that eventually won a Pulitzer. “I’m not willing to work further on this project with Judy Miller,” he wrote in the memo, which recently leaked to The Washington Post. “I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct. She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her … She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies.” Worse still, she had “tried to stampede it into the paper.” </p>

<hr>

<p>“The heart of the controversy that’s erupted around Judy just now is her relationship with a particular source—she says she cannot recall precisely which source—who gave her the name of a “Valerie Flame.” Those two words appear in the same notebook Judy took to a meeting with Libby on July 8, 2003, but on a different page than the notes from her conversation with the vice president’s right-hand man. “Flame” turned out to be Valerie Plame, who worked for the CIA under nonofficial cover. Whoever was spreading her name may have been violating a 1982 law written to prevent exposing and endangering American secret agents. Anyone who lied about this to the Federal grand jury that is looking into the case could be charged with perjury.”</p>