Rove, Novak, the WHIGers and others -- reality sucks, doesn't it.

[understandinglife]

In a previous thread, Rove, Novak, the WHIGers and others got some really bad news today, I posted a bit of bad news for our little gang of White House traitors and their ever more freaked-out co-conspirator, Novak.

That thread focused on...

... the indictment of Paul McNulty, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced that Lawrence Anthony Franklin, age 58, of Kearneysville, WV; Steven J. Rosen, age 63, of Silver Spring, MD; and Keith Weissman, age 53, of Bethesda, MD.

They were indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in Alexandria with Conspiracy to Communicate National Defense Information to Persons Not Entitled to Receive It.

Counts 1 - 4, as filed against defendant Lawrence Allen Franklin, on May 26, 2005, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia include:

Conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it, 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) & (g);

and,

Communication of national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it, 18 U.S.C. § 793(d).

Franklin, as would be the case for Rove, all the other members of the WHIG (White House Iraq Group), and anyone accessing the Top Secret document on AF1 during Bush's Africa trip (July 6 - 13, 2003), either had signed SF-312 - Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement or would be in violation of the law by virtue of having unauthorized access to it and any of the information it contained.

Congressman Waxman has focused on SF-312 and rightly so.

Ms Plame's identity was marked explicitly Top Secret and carried the additional caveat that it not be shared with other governments irrespective of their status as allies.

Novak, Miller, Cooper and any other person in receipt of the classified information from Rove or/and anyone else who signed an SF-312 are candidates for co-conspiracy status, just as Rosen and Weissman have now been indicted as co-conspirators in the Franklin case.

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4263356

Well, today, Tom Engelhardt publishes an analysis of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, you know the one that so many astute pundits and traitor-apologists have been claiming is almost impossible to prove intent.

Psst, hey Karl, hey Condi, yo Bob, ..... you might want to get your legal eagles to read what Elizabeth de la Vega, former federal prosecutor and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, has to say about the application of the IIPA.

Plame in the Courtroom: Is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act really impossible to prove?

By Elizabeth de la Vega

August 11, 2005

Pundits right, left, and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, because it imposes an impossibly high standard for proof of intent. Typically, writing for Slate on July 19th, Christopher Hitchens described the 1982 Act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Similarly, columnist Richard Cohen, in the July 14 Washington Post, said he thought Rove was a "political opportunist, not a traitor" and that he didn't think Rove "specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent." Such examples could be multiplied many times over.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong; and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? The answer is no.

<clip>

Whether charges will be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or, if they were, what a jury would decide, we cannot possibly know. But we do know that it is not a law under which guilt is nearly impossible to prove -- as the pundits, citing each other, have led us to believe. It also bears mentioning that experienced prosecutors never underestimate juries. Most juries are like the special grand jury described by Matt Cooper: thorough, highly-engaged people who are absolutely committed to applying the law only to the evidence they have heard in court as they are instructed to do. They are not easily fooled. They have common sense. And they are firmly rooted in the reality-based community.

The full, exquisite analysis is available at the link:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=11747

Oh, WHIGers, and you also, Georgie and Dickie, and all your favorite co-conspirators and embedded propagandists -- that sound you hear, perhaps faintly, but it's real -- jail time, jail time, jail time .... -- is going to just keep getting louder. And, you better hope it doesn't morph into death penalty, death penalty, death penalty....


Peace.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. These people need to be carted off to the Hague

[porphyrian]

2. DEATH PENALTY!

I hate fucking traitors, especially ones in our White House.

[fooj]

3. It's finally happening...

Peace.

[displacedtexan]

4. Here's my favorite paragraph... (This is BIG! Huge!)

When it comes to the Cooper-Rove conversation, a prosecutor would assumedly argue, first, that there's no doubt Karl Rove provided information to Cooper intentionally; that is, not by mistake or accident. It strains credulity to suggest that a seasoned political operator like Rove ever says anything to a reporter that is not calculated, and Rove's purposefulness can also be seen in the details of the call. Rove knew he was talking to a reporter, not a person authorized to receive classified information. Since Cooper called Rove and was put through only after the call was screened by a secretary, we can infer that Rove made a conscious choice to speak with him. Cooper also began the call by identifying himself. Finally, Rove provided information on "deep background," a term of art which, to a reporter, means that the information can be used but the source cannot be identified. This fact alone precludes a finding that Rove was speaking accidentally or by mistake.

Wow! They thought they could hide the phone calls by routing them through the switchboard. They also never thought any reporter would rat them out.

[understandinglife]

5. Yes, that's a personal favorite of mine, as well. And, I do enjoy her ...

... panache, along with her insightful analysis. She writes really well. Even Georgie might understand it if a child read it to him.


Peace.

[Just Me]

6. Naturally, I like her take on the IIPA.

This cabal has engaged in so many incorrigible and criminal activities against our people, they DO deserve to receive the death penalty (and I say that as an anti-death penalty advocate)!!!

[understandinglife]

7. An interesting perspective on Cooper and "Runaway Grand Juries"

Furthermore, the grand jury can return indictments or true bills (aka indictments) of their own initiation. They are not constrained by the indictments or information presented to them by Patrick Fitzgerald. The grand jurors are allowed to ask their own questions and create their own indictments. Grand juries that take the reins like this are sometimes referred to as "runaway grand juries":

"A runaway grand jury is an exception to this rule -- the grand jurors ignore the prosecutor(s) and start making their own decisions. Runaway grand juries were not uncommon in the early twentieth century. The best known of these runaway grand juries is probably the New York grand jury in the 1930's that barred prosecutors from coming into the grand jury room and took off on its own investigation of corruption in New York city government. This grand jury eventually cooperated with Thomas E. Dewey, whom the jurors apparently decided they could trust, and returned many indictments against a variety of defendants, including some well known members of the New York Mafia. Since modern grand jurors tend to be ignorant of their ability to act independently of a prosecutor's wishes, runaway grand juries have pretty much become a thing of the past. There have, however, been a few exceptions: Recently, for example, a California state grand jury indicted all the top county officials, and nearly closed down county government. And a Texas state grand jury began investigating a mayoral candidate and seems to have ruined his reputation sufficiently to cause him to lose the election, even though he was never charged with any crimes."

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm

In this context, read Matthew Cooper's comments about his experience with Patrick Fitzgerald's unique grand jurors:

" 'Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and their docility is infamous,' Cooper writes. A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. 'But I didn't get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia,' he wrote. 'The majority were African-American and were disproportionately women... These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2-1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor's.' "

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/leakcase719

<clip>

It's important to note, that Fitzgerald may be constrained by his legal mandate as to what he is allowed to investigate. He might also be constrained by superiors and furthermore, both he and the grand jurors might have considered the possibility that his job may be taken from him. After all, the President will decide whether Fitzgerald returns to his job when his term is up in October. The grand jury might also be aware of that fact, and they may have taken over this investigation, not out of disrespect for Patrick Fitzgerald, but perhaps just the opposite.

Hopefully, they've awoken to the magnitude of the historical significance their questions, deliberations and votes may hold. It's possible that the future of our country, the lives of our soldiers, and the lives of innocent people in foreign countries all over the globe are now in the minds and hearts of the "citizen panelists" now examining the actions of the Bush administration and its facilitators.

Rule 6(e)(3) may be of interest (UL adds: because of the Franklin indictments and investigation and potential linkage to Fitzgerald's investigation).

3) Exceptions.

(A) Disclosure of a grand jury matter -- other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote -- may be made to:

(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty;

(ii) any government personnel -- including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government' -- that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

(iii) a person authorized by 18 USC sec. 3322.

(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. sec. 401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate Federal, State, State subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.

From Treasongate by CitzenSpook on August 8, 2005-08-11

Link:

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com (search on “Runaway”)

Peace.

[understandinglife]

18. Early this morning, a dKos diary on the "Plame grand jury" appeared ...

.... and it contains some quite useful information.

Just one quote and the link:

So once they have evaluated all of the evidence and are prepared to determine whether PROBABLE CAUSE exists (and NOT necessarily guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). What do they do?

When the grand jury has received all the evidence on a given charge, all persons other than the members of the grand jury must leave the room so that the grand jury may begin its deliberations. The presence of any other person in the grand jury room while the grand jury deliberates or votes may nullify an indictment returned on the accusation. After all persons other than the grand jury members have left the room, the foreperson will ask the grand jury members to discuss and vote upon the question of whether the evidence persuades the grand jury that a crime has probably been committed by the person accused and that an indictment should be returned. Every grand juror has the right to express his or her view of the matter under consideration, and grand jurors should listen to the comments of all their fellow grand jurors before making up their mind. Only after each grand juror has been given the opportunity to be heard will the vote be taken. It should be remembered that at least 16 jurors must be present and 12 members must vote in favor of the indictment before it may be returned.

The question is now how high will it go?

Link:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/12/62058/5657

All the way to the President, based on what we already know, I'd say.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

8. "Circumstantial evidence? Yes, contrary to popular belief ...

... direct and circumstantial evidence have equal weight under federal criminal law. So one very strong permissible inference from the evidence of the administration's post-July 6, 2003 conduct could be that, given the damaging nature of the Joseph Wilson story and the urgency with which the State Department memo had been requested, it is impossible to believe that Powell simply tucked it into his briefcase and began watching an in-flight movie.

ibid; http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=11747

These guys lawyers are going to be busy forever....


Peace.

[understandinglife]

9. The media -- "“lined up for these lies” spun by the White House."

The title of the Wolff article is "All Roads Lead to Rove."

In an article in the September issue of Vanity Fair (not yet online), Michael Wolff, in probing the Plame/CIA leak scandal, rips those in the news media-—principally Time magazine and The New York Times--who knew that Karl Rove was one of the leakers but refused to expose what would have been “one of the biggest stories of the Bush years.” Not only that, “they helped cover it up.” You might say, he adds, they “became part of a conspiracy.”

Link:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001013806

No comment.

Except that I hope Michael Wolff contacted Jason Leopold and cleared the use of the title "All Roads Lead to Rove" given that Mr Leopold has a copyrighted essay online by that title:

http://www.nthposition.com/allroadslead.php




Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

10. Thanks for sharing, U.L.

edited to add: sending a PM

[HughBeaumont]

11. Not to be Johnny Raincloud here,

but until something actually HAPPENS and CHANGES, as in SOMEone from the PNAC getting frog-marched or better yet, this administration coming to a flaming and deserved END, I'm not counting my chickens.

I mean, scandal after numerous scandal, death after lie-caused death, treasonous act upon treasonous act . . . and what becomes of it? When we all wake up in the morning, Lancelot Shithead is STILL the Puppet-dent, Cheney STILL remains the behind-the-scenes, rarely seen snake, dealmaker and bitch to the Shiekdoms, the "three Rs" (Rice, Rummy and Rove) STILL occupy their positions, and the American people STILL are victims of the biggest joke played on them since the days of S&L and Iran/Contra.

WHY IS NOTHING HAPPENING????? WHY DOES NOTHING EVER CHANGE??? WHY IS NO ONE CALLING THEM ON ANYTHING????

What the FUCK is it going to take to end this disease of an administration and get a REAL leader in the Blight House?

I'm just starting to lose hope that we're ever going to see the type of speech we saw on August 9th, 1974.

[DemReadingDU]

12. I understand your frustration.

I too am frustrated with my family, friends, others. They are all just too busy doing their own thing to pay attention. Until a major event occurs to affect a wide number of people, then they will wake up.

[understandinglife]

14. August 9, 1974 was more than two years after the burglary ...

.... this is way worse and it is likely going to take considerable persistent effort to bring these criminals to justice.

Four things are going very badly for them, now:

The Plame Grand Jury

Cindy Sheehan

A bunch of truly pissed CIA (and other insider) folk

All of us who are determined to take them before a judge and jury.


Peace.

[electropop]

24. The Plaming of America

This case is just an example on a smaller scale, of what Bushitler has done to the whole country. America is finally waking up, as the continuing news coverage (thin as it is) indicates.

It will take time to unravel it, but in the end, the administration is going down.

And as for the truly pissed CIA, all I can say is, Rove better watch his back.

[mod mom]

13. UL, Your posts are excellent at tying together pieces of the puzzle. I

wish the posts could be put together in book form for those who are unaware of what is going on. Thank you for all your efforts!

[understandinglife]

15. Thank you for your comments. At some point, I'll begin building an ...

... annotated index and post it, here, with regular updates. I want everything I'm doing to remain entirely unencumbered by my actual name and by any form of financial return, thus I'm not going to 'publish' it other than in the public domain, here at DU.

All of this is merely a tad bit of service to my fellow citizens in the face of the monstrous evil being perpetrated by the occupants of the White House and their rich, corrupt friends in Congress and in certain corporations.

Eisenhower's very worst nightmare is what we are now living.

Peace.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Ike was the last good Republican.

At least he knew the difference between being a world power and being an imperialistic one.

we shall never try to placate an aggressor by the false and wicked bargain of trading honor for security.

we shall never use our strength to try to impress upon another people our own cherished political and economic institutions.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. You mean ABE, ABE was the last humanity based republican.

[DemReadingDU]

20. and Thank you, U.L.

your time and effort are much appreciated!

[understandinglife]

17. Elizabeth de la Vega makes it to the pages of the Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-delavega12aug12,0,78486.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


Peace.

[understandinglife]

19. "Think Progress" Treasongate database link:

http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal

A DU thread on this database can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2003933

But, I'm posting the direct link in this thread as a convenient reference to the outstanding effort of the Think Progress folk, for those who are reading this thread at some point in the future and want to either go directly to the db or view the comments in the DU thread.

And I've saved a copy of the database (just in case it disappears).


Peace.

[merh]

22. Great links - thanks UL.

Nominated & bookmarked & kicked :kick:

[Talismom]

23. Very nice indeed! Question is, will any of this go down before

next 9/11 crisis, draft, war against Iran, martial law...any other
mechanism they can come up with for holding on to power and further perverting this country?

[understandinglife]

25. Well, I think Bush has confused the woman in the ditch for the ....

... the steamroller she actually represents. He's about to become pavement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4330194&mesg_id=4330194

My attitude, and I doubt if I'm alone, is that Bush any of the stuff folk hypothesize might 'distract' us (or the world) - like attacking Iran, or another "9/11", .... will only hasten georgie boy and the neoconsters demise.

They are going to go to jail. I give no attention to any other outcome.


Peace.

[Talismom]

27. I hope you're right and yearn for the day! n/t

[bleever]

26. I am glad to see that my reading of the statute wasn't naive.

All this blather about having to prove intent to an impossible degree certainly isn't evident in the language of the law itself.

That argument is similar to saying that robbing a bank is only criminal if you can make certain determinations about the perpetrators specific intent. Uh...no.

Rec'd.

Thanks, UL!



ed: because it's "statute", not "statue".

[understandinglife]

28. "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stepped aside from the probe...

... because he was White House counsel when Valerie Plame's name was leaked in 2003 and he has testified to the grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure.

Comey gave broad discretion to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago when he was appointed to investigate the leak in December 2003. Margolis is not expected to alter Fitzgerald's mandate in what are likely to be the final months of his investigation. The grand jury ends its term in October.

<clip>

David Margolis, a lawyer at the Justice Department for 40 years, was named Friday to oversee a special prosecutor's investigation of who in the Bush administration disclosed the name of an undercover CIA officer.

<clip>

Comey made the designation of Margolis.

From Career Lawyer Gets Oversight of CIA Probe

By MARK SHERMAN

August 12, 2005

Link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-cia-leak-probe,1,4366082.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

By the way, beyond the fact that this is important, one should realize that part of the squeeze that resulted in this appointment is being applied, skillfully, by Senator Levin and Senator Reid.

Peace.

[Burried News]

29. I got some ole Johnny Cash records I can send you boyz

who'll be doing time. Just give me a few minutes to put some scratches in them - wouldn't want y'all to be too comfortable.

Of course it could be worse, you could be in Baghdad.
Hi Today 118F Low 93F
Sunday will be a toastie 122F

Aintcha glad you're not one of our kinda people.