READER COMMENTS ON

"VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Joe Wilson Responds to BRAD BLOG Query on Karl Rove Subpoena"

(25 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... SteveIL said on 5/29/2008 @ 6:04 pm PT...





Does anyone know why nobody was charged with violating the IIPA, the law in question, which states specifically that one can only be charged under the statute if someone knowingly outs a covert agent? Libby was never charged with this, and neither were Rove or Armitage (the guy who actually outed Plame). During the Libby trial, it came out that individuals George Tenet's CIA were the ones who told Libby and Rove and Armitage (and seemingly a whole host of people) that Plame was Wilson's wife, but without telling them she was covert. Which is why Fitzgerald couldn't charge anybody with violating the IIPA. It was the CIA and Wilson himself (who opened his big mouth leaking his story to Nick Kristoff and Walter Pincus, then writing that ridiculous op-ed) who outed Plame (inadvertantly), not anyone else.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Mimi Kennedy said on 5/29/2008 @ 6:16 pm PT...





At last!

If Karl did any of his Seigelman discussions on that RNC laptop, look for any claim of Executive Privilege to be challenged by the fact that Karl kept that laptop in implicit acknowledgement of and obedience to the Hatch Act, which forbids party business being done on the people's time - which would be time done serving the Executive Branch. That laptop was for RNC biz, which cannot be protected as Executive Branch confidentiality. The challenge to that argument never happened in the Wilson matter; now, if the president dares argue Rove's protection again, the House can set a very necessary precedent that Political Director can't serve a party, on a party laptop, at a party e-mail address, on the people's time in the White house and claim Executive Privilege for that service.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... CambridgeKnitter said on 5/29/2008 @ 7:59 pm PT...





Re #1 SteveIL: Did you leave out any of the false Republican talking points? Maybe just the ridiculous claim that she outed herself by appearing in Vanity Fair after she was actually outed? Do you enjoy totally embarrassing yourself like this?

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/29/2008 @ 10:20 pm PT...





Wondering who those 28 percenters are? SteveIL and a couple of other fringe folks would seem to be just about all they've got left. But to answer some of SteveIL's long-ago discredited wingnut talking points: Does anyone know why nobody was charged with violating the IIPA, the law in question, which states specifically that one can only be charged under the statute if someone knowingly outs a covert agent? Yes. According to the prosecutor on the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, he was unable to get the information he needed in order to bring such an indictment because I. Scooter Libby "kicked sand in the umpire's face" by obstructing justice and lying to federal investigators so they couldn't get to the truth of the matter. Libby was never charged with this, and neither were Rove or Armitage (the guy who actually outed Plame). Actually, he was one of several, including Rove and Libby etc. who did so. But as to why he was never charged, see above. Or go read the facts of the case itself (not the version you read at Townhall.com) During the Libby trial, it came out that individuals George Tenet's CIA were the ones who told Libby and Rove and Armitage (and seemingly a whole host of people) that Plame was Wilson's wife, but without telling them she was covert. Which is why Fitzgerald couldn't charge anybody with violating the IIPA. Completely unsubstantiated nonsense. Of course, I'll be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not (yet) charge you with posting knowing disinfo here (a bannable offense), as long as you can offer the evidence to back up your claim above. We'll all be looking forward to it. It was the CIA and Wilson himself (who opened his big mouth leaking his story to Nick Kristoff and Walter Pincus, then writing that ridiculous op-ed) who outed Plame (inadvertantly), not anyone else. Once again, we await your evidence. If you can't offer it, or otherwise fail to retract the above, I'll then have to presume you're posting knowing disinformation. So please deliver the goods. I'd hate for you to lose your posting privileges here. Thank you.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... socrates said on 5/30/2008 @ 4:17 am PT...





Maybe there is hope for justice after all, though I put no faith in Fitzgerald. Imho, he is a fake. He only charged one guy? He used a baseball analogy to explain why he failed? Now what "ridiculous op-ed" is SteveIl talking about? The only famous one by Wilson I know of was when he pointed out that Shrub's State of the Union Address was full of lies about wmd's. The thing I hate worst about our country is there is little emphasis on history. And I'm not talking about way back history, but even a few years ago. Why isn't there more talk about the White House Iraq Group? Does that become old news?

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... SteveIL said on 5/30/2008 @ 6:57 am PT...





Brad Friedman said:

According to the prosecutor on the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, he was unable to get the information he needed in order to bring such an indictment because I. Scooter Libby "kicked sand in the umpire's face" by obstructing justice and lying to federal investigators so they couldn't get to the truth of the matter. Considering how many people testified, and how long this investigation has gone on, the fact that nobody was charged with violating the IIPA can hardly be laid only at the feet of Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice. If that was the case, don't you think Libby would have been so charged? Also, that would also indicate that Libby was the only administration official outside the CIA to know Plame was covert, since neither Rove or Armitage were charged with anything, least of all violating the IIPA. Therefore, the only possible conclusion someone, including Fitzgerald, can come up with is that only the CIA knew Plame was covert. Now, if you have evidence to the contrary, evidence that was never used by Fitzgerald, I'd be happy to see it. In response to my saying:

It was the CIA and Wilson himself (who opened his big mouth leaking his story to Nick Kristoff and Walter Pincus, then writing that ridiculous op-ed) who outed Plame (inadvertantly), not anyone else. you said:

Once again, we await your evidence. If you can't offer it, or otherwise fail to retract the above, I'll then have to presume you're posting knowing disinformation. Here:

Critics have argued for years that if Plame was concerned about her CIA cover, she should not have let Wilson discuss his mission to Niger publicly nor write about it in the New York Times. She touches on this only briefly in the book, saying neither of them ever considered the possibility it would jeopardize her cover. Now, I wouldn't call this evidence of a crime, since I don't believe any of the parties involved violated the IIPA. But it was Wilson and the CIA who allowed for the possibility of finding out how Wilson was chosen to be sent to Niger, and possibly exposing Plame as a covert CIA agent. As far as Wilson leaking his trip to Niger to Kristoff and Pincus within two months of writing his own op-ed in the New York Times, those are already known facts. What this ended up being was a stupid mistake on the part of the Wilson's and the CIA to allow Joe Wilson to open his big mouth about the trip. That mistake was compounded by the administration's attempts to sweep Plame's outing under the rug, and the Democrat's politicizing the outing by sweeping the CIA's, and the Wilsons', culpability in all this.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... molly said on 5/30/2008 @ 7:32 am PT...





SteveIL Are you going to vote for McCain? Or is he too liberal?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... SteveIL said on 5/30/2008 @ 8:58 am PT...





Molly said:

SteveIL Are you going to vote for McCain? Or is he too liberal? Forgive me, but I don't get the point of the question, or that it is relevant to the whole Plame debacle being discussed. See, to me, this has nothing to do with the upcoming election.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 5/30/2008 @ 10:07 am PT...





Too bad Rove can't be tricked into going through US Customs with that laptop.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Patriot said on 5/30/2008 @ 10:54 am PT...





Re: SteveIL

Dump, dump, dump, another one bites the dust

And another one gone and another one gone

Another one bites the dust

(you go Brad! --- nail this puppy's posting priveleges) Ever notice how the paid disinformation agents nearly always post the first response to an article? This is to be expected since it is their JOB to monitor the 'net on a moment to moment basis to attempt to stifle the truth. Other, normal people, patriots with jobs, can only catch up as time permits. Truth and justice WILL win and "good Germans" like SteveIL will not find that fun at all in the long run.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... SteveIL said on 5/30/2008 @ 11:47 am PT...





Thanks for the laugh Patriot. Let me know when you're going to start paying me on my new job (and I am expensive). Seriously, I took a gander at the CIA Leak Case tag for this blog. What I found was fascinating; on a 3/16/2007 post here at BRAD BLOG (link: https://bradblog.com/?p=4283), there is a chart that was used during Valerie Plame's testimony before Waxman's committee. There are five black lines leading from the top set of boxes leading one way to various individuals at the White House and the State Dept. (although one name is missing, then-Sec. of State Powell, who found out from Armitage I believe). Two of those individuals, Harlow and Grenier, are (or were) in the CIA. They told Libby and Martin (?) about Plame. Again, to be convicted of violating the IIPA, one has to knowingly out a covert agent. Since nobody was charged with this (for the reasons I explained earlier), did anybody find out if either of these Plame colleagues knew she was covert? And if so, why weren't they charged with leaking classified information, and possibly of violating the IIPA? After all, only the CIA would know if Plame was covert unless someone in the CIA passed that information on as well, which didn't seem to be the case. Either that, or the various members of the CIA were lying to save their asses and to keep from being charged. Here's something else interesting. In the top set of boxes is a black one marked "Unknown", and this has one-way arrows pointing to Cheney and Rove, but no one-way arrow to Libby. Nobody seems to know who this is (maybe they do now), whether this person was in the CIA, or whether this person knew Plame was covert. Whether Cheney told Libby of this contact doesn't seem to be known; but, it obviously couldn't have been that big a deal to Fitzgerald since, again, nobody was charged with violating the IIPA. But I do have a question; why didn't Waxman actually want to find out why the George Tenet-led CIA failed to protect the identity of one of their covert agents? Isn't this...you know...oversight? (And yes, the question could also be asked of his Republican predecessor.)

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... socrates said on 5/30/2008 @ 1:12 pm PT...





SteveIL doesn't want the reader to learn more about the White House Iraq Group, imho. He wants people to get stuck in rabbit holes of whether the CIA or the Bush Administration leaked Plame's name. The big story has always been about war crimes. Joe Wilson outed George Bush for his lying State of the Union address. The “Broader Conspiracy”: What We Already Know About the White House Iraq Group» So why do you call Wilson's op-ed ridiculous, SteveIL? Are you talking about a different one than this: What I Didn't Find in Africa by Joseph C. Wilson 4th The CIA and the Bush Administration are the same. George Sr. used to run the CIA. Prescott Bush did business with Nazis.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/30/2008 @ 1:25 pm PT...





Brad, SteveIL: Scott McClellan has pretty well mooted this whole argument about Plamegate by telling us about * admitting outright to having approved it. Maybe you want to watch him say it. Seems to me this puts a whole new slant on the entire thing.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... MarkH said on 5/30/2008 @ 2:22 pm PT...





If you really want to know about PlameGate you should hop on over to FireDogLake.com That's the blog that followed it closely and even live-blogged the Libby trial.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... SteveIL said on 5/30/2008 @ 2:39 pm PT...





Socrates said:

So why do you call Wilson's op-ed ridiculous, SteveIL? Are you talking about a different one than this: What I Didn't Find in Africa by Joseph C. Wilson 4th It is the one I was referring to. It's also something else which I'll get to later. The timeline for this is already available. Feb. 2002 - Cheney wants CIA to investigate British report of Saddam attempting to buy uranium from Niger; Through Plame, CIA sends former ambassador Wilson Mar. 2002 - Wilson reports to the CIA; CIA report states that former Nigerien Prime Minister said that an Iraqi contingent was sent by Saddam in 1999 to "expand commercial interests" between the two countries; CIA report states that Nigerien PM believed this was about Saddam attempting to purchase uranium; CIA report states Nigerien PM let matter drop due to sanctions on Iraq Oct. 2002 - Bush gets AUMF against Iraq; report of sale of uranium to Iraq, but documentation is questionable, and is not used in subsequent policy decisions (it was proven to be a forgery in Mar. 2003) Jan. 2003 - Bush issues SOTU with the 16 words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." May 2003 - Wilson, right around the time he donates and joins Kerry campaign, leaks his trip to New York Times reporter Nick Kristoff June 2003 - Wilson leaks his trip to Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus; Pincus reports that Wilson (the anonymous source) told the CIA any documentation of an Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger was fraudulent, and Pincus article falsely claims the 16 words were based on this data (they weren't) July 2003 - Wilson writes his op-ed Jul. 2004 - British government issues Butler report noting the attempted purchase of uranium by Iraq in 1999; Senate Intelligence Committee issues {Ed Note: Warning, this is a link to a HUGE pdf that could ruin your day if you have a slow computer or a slow connection. --99} Pre-War Intelligence report; CIA report (from Mar. 2002) indicating attempted Iraqi "commercial relations" in 1999 (on page 43, page 55 of PDF file), which refutes Wilson's assertions of prior year; Wilson also testified that wife helped with getting him sent to Niger Mar. 2007 - Valerie Plame testifies to Waxman committee; states she had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger Bush didn't lie regarding those 16 words, and every report that has come out has proven it. The one document or set of documents showing a uranium sale to Iraq was already questionable long before the 16 words were put into the SOTU, and were never used by administration officials (it was proven a forgery afterwards). The CIA and British Intelligence both cite an attempted purchase of uranium by Iraq, as noted by the former Nigerien PM. So what we have here is that Joe Wilson lied through his teeth for a year until he testified under oath. And then reiterated his lies after that. There's enough evidence to charge Plame with perjury for lying to Congress over her role in Wilson going to Niger. Joe Wilson didn't out George Bush. Wilson outed himself, then, along with the CIA, outed his covert agent wife. The administration was accused of criminal actions, and had every right to defend itself against those charges, and to find out how Wilson was involved in this. Again, the CIA knew she was covert and did nothing to stop Wilson from opening his big mouth and putting Plame's covert status at risk. Add this, as I mentioned above:

Critics have argued for years that if Plame was concerned about her CIA cover, she should not have let Wilson discuss his mission to Niger publicly nor write about it in the New York Times. She touches on this only briefly in the book, saying neither of them ever considered the possibility it would jeopardize her cover. This has to be one of the dumbest things a covert CIA operative could possibly say. She's covert and her husband makes scurrilous public charges against the administration; what the hell did they think the administration was going to do? And as things turned out, it wasn't the administration who lied about this (although they did handle this whole thing badly). No, those who lied were the Wilsons.

The CIA and the Bush Administration are the same. George Sr. used to run the CIA. Prescott Bush did business with Nazis. And this has what to do with anything? By the way, Ted Kennedy's daddy Joe, Sr. (the bootlegger) loved the Nazis and was a rampant anti-Semite. So there. Nyah.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/30/2008 @ 4:13 pm PT...





You are misspelling "Nigerian" very consistently.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/30/2008 @ 4:16 pm PT...





And I'm telling you, revelations from Scott McClellan moot all your cherry-picking of fact and spin and outright lies to present this shit ad nauseam.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... SteveIL said on 5/30/2008 @ 4:21 pm PT...





Agent 99 said:

You are misspelling "Nigerian" very consistently I don't think so. The word "Nigerian" refers to someone from Nigeria. The word "Nigerien" refers to someone from Niger, a completely different country. Wilson went to Niger.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... socrates said on 5/30/2008 @ 5:43 pm PT...





Patriot#10 Ever notice how the paid disinformation agents nearly always post the first response to an article? This is to be expected since it is their JOB to monitor the 'net on a moment to moment basis to attempt to stifle the truth. I'm not gonna call out Steve as paid disinfo. But there is truth about how they do often get the first post in. I am not an expert on the Plamegate details. It would not surprise me if Plame and Wilson are not good guys. Plame was a CIA agent. That is an immediate red flag. Joe Wilson was buddies with Scowcroft, Bush Sr. types as regards to foreign policy, going by memory of a New Yorker article I read years ago. But the main thrust of this blog post is the question of whether Karl Rove might be going to jail. I would actually take SteveIL at face value if he at all could relate his posts to this overall theme. I am the king of going off-topic, so I won't say more on that. But I do think it strange that SteveIL has avoided making comment on the White House Iraq Group or on how Rove might be busted for racketeering{?}, concerning Don Siegelman ending up in prison. So imho, if SteveIL is correct about some things here, it would suggest that Plamegate was a scripted, limited hangout to divert people's attention away from understanding that war crimes have taken place. I would have checked into this a bit, but since he doesn't seem to be posting anything to do with Rove's crimes, I withdraw myself from any debate with him. you can't start illegal wars and mayhem based on lies

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... SteveIL said on 5/30/2008 @ 6:35 pm PT...





Socrates said:

I would have checked into this a bit, but since he doesn't seem to be posting anything to do with Rove's crimes, I withdraw myself from any debate with him. I'm still waiting for one teeny-weeny little indictment (and trial, and conviction) of Rove to show one bit of criminality. Rove's been a target for years, yet nothing, not even the inkling of a charge (other than the false assertion by Jason Leopold a couple of years ago) being brought against Rove. Even this Siegelman thing is so far-fetched as to be nothing more than ludicrous, especially since the only "evidence" against Rove is some alleged "Republican" remembering that she thought she heard Rove's name mentioned (this was all that came out of her testimony last year; everything she's said since seems to be made up). Then there's the whole U.S. Attorneys thing. The only thing that could be said about that is that Gonzales was stupid in trying to make the resignations seem to be not politically motivated, and made it worse by fumbling around (none were fired, all served their four-year terms). All Gonzales needed to do when asked why any of these attorneys were not going to be in those jobs anymore was to show a copy of subsection (c) of Sec. 541 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which simply states:

Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. It doesn't say why, it doesn't say a reason is needed, none of that. All it says is that a U.S. Attorney can be removed by the President. If Gonzales had stuck to that, he wouldn't have created the mess he did. Whether Rove did this or that is completely immaterial and has nothing to do with any kind of criminal act. I'm not a Rove fan by any means. But this assertion that he is a criminal, even before he's been charged with anything, and doing so for years, is utterly pathetic. The law states that he must be proven guilty of a crime, and is innocent before that. That is the American way. I can understand badmouthing him for political reasons, but he's now out of politics; so all this looks like is cheap theatrics by the likes of Conyers, Olbermann, etc. That is unless somebody believes it a crime to have helped get Bush elected President (and yes, he was legally elected; no, I don't want to get into it here).

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/30/2008 @ 6:50 pm PT...





I've been buried in more important things that have kept me from keeping up with this thread and the extraordinary disinformation that's been posted here by SteveIL. When I have time to review it in full, I'll respond and/or remove the comments which are clearly knowing disinformation at this point. Almost every single one of SteveIL's points have either been debunked or were out and out nonsense to begin with. Given his knowledge of the case, I'll have to presume he's also aware of the fact that he's repeating debunked garbage. Anyway, I don't have time for troll-stomping for the moment, but will try to get back here when I can. For the moment, he's now on Moderate for violation of commenting rules at BRAD BLOG (posting knowing disinformation).

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... socrates said on 5/30/2008 @ 7:57 pm PT...



COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... socrates said on 5/30/2008 @ 8:43 pm PT...



COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... mstfd said on 6/1/2008 @ 7:56 pm PT...





Then why is it that Dick Cheney's handwritten notes talk about "Wilson's wife works for the n.p. bureau" (non-proliferation bureau) They knew what she did...why is this being missed? It's in the court documentation.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Lori Valencia said on 6/3/2008 @ 10:29 am PT...

