home

Pre-Indictment Spin Planning

By TChris, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 04:35:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

How to spin an indictment:

With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

Funniest spin: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison claiming that she hopes "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." Republicans who were so exercised about Bill Clinton's testimony regarding oral pleasure now believe that perjury is just a "technicality"?

Hutchison also compared the leak investigation to Martha Stewart's case. Yet Martha Stewart went to prison, and there weren't a whole lot of Republicans objecting to that outcome.

The funniest defense: lying (about politics, if not oral pleasure) is a way of life in Washington.

Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works.

Washington is a "truth free zone" where lying to federal officers or grand juries shouldn't be a crime? Let's see how well that spin goes over as elections approach.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | BC Opens Human Rights & Justice Center >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pre-Indictment Spin Planning | 56 comments (56 topical)
    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Overzealous? Do tell, wingnuts: how can a prosecutor be "overzealous", from the right-wing, mandatory-sentencing, three-strikes-and-you're-out perspective?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    This post from TChris pretty much makes my point on this whole thing - there was no original crime, and the reaction to it is based not on facts, but on where you stand politically. You know, just like the Clinton matter.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    - there was no original crime
    There, there now, just keep on repeating that to yourself, if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile, standby for indictments! Because it's almost Fritzmas!!!!

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    I agree: those who are now trying to spin this as "just a perjury thing" are wrong. Perjury is a crime, regardless of what you are lying about, and it should be prosecuted. Unfortunately for TChris, that blade cuts both ways. A lot of the people screaming about perjury now are those who felt it wasn't at all important when it was Bill Clinton doing the lying. And I'm willing to bet TChris was one of them. Hypocrisy sucks, whether it comes from the left or the right.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    In the case of Clinton, he lied about something that wasn't a crime (oral sex). Still a lie and unacceptable. But in this case, these are lies about a breach of national security. Both are wrong, but it seems that there IS a difference in magnitude.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    I'm with Pete and as so many have said before...no one died from Clinton's blowjob --not that his lying was acceptable but Senator (sic) Bighair -she's another Texas joke on the rest of us. Too bad Russert is so in pocket with the Republicans --I'd like to see him put her previous statements about Clinton's perjury up for her to explain

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    [he] forced his most loyal staff into the tightest of corners, he was actually surprised when they took the initiative and tried to free themselves from this problem. [he] was caught in his own web of lies and deceit with no one left around him to accuse or blame. [he] insisted that everything he had done was for the benefit of his country, but it is hard to see how such blatant abuse of power could benefit the voting public. The only positive aspect of the whole situation was that the truth was eventually revealed (as much as possible) and the American public justifiably reacted in disgust at their treatment by the man they had elected to power. Most people here, and elswhere, will be very familiar with the story above. It is a story of a mindset of hubris, denial of reality, a systemic policy of lies and deceit, and a belief that ends justify means. It is the story of the crumbling of a republican presidency.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. And if I had a dollar for every comment made by Demos/Lefies that match Hutchinson's I would have my $10,000 buy-in for the WSOP. The issue should always be, was the act a crime? A BJ wasn't. Was Mrs. Wilson a covert agent? Some say yes, some say no. (I say no.) If the SP thinks so, he should indict and try. But politics is blood sports, and all the denials, posturing and other BS associated with this issue should be cheerfully ignored by the legal profession. And that includes Fitzgerald.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    edgey - You wish.....

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    If I commit perjury, shouldn't I go to jail? Why are Republicans any different? Help me out here, Jim.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    By the way, it boggles the mind, why an innocent person would make stuff up: seems like it merely increases the chances you will be indicted. Say you come home and your parents want to know who broke one of the windows. You were at school all day and don't know, but you concoct an elaborate story involving space aliens, and then your friends tell your parents it was a hailstorm, and then you're caught planting evidence that the cat did it. Eventually you break down and admit that all the stories were made up. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just say you weren't there and don't know? You must either be lying (perhaps you skipped school and broke the window screwing around somehow) or crazy. The Republicans want me to believe the UFO defense. Why should I?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#12)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    But politics is blood sports, and all the denials, posturing and other BS associated with this issue should be cheerfully ignored
    No. Super-secret death squads, improvised explosive devices, suicide attacks, tyrannical group punishment -- those are "blood sports." Politics should be better than that. Unless it's not... in which case our high-falutin' words don't mean a damn thing. But credit where credit is due: this administration has taught me the meaning of the word "cynical."

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#13)
    by mjvpi on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Have you noticed that every time that the Pres and VP have testified, it hasn't been under oath? Quick studies.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    When war and politics are involved, why do we suddenly lose our critical faculties and give those in power free rein? Bloody idiotic. No truth ever rose from denying a lie is a lie is a lie. Must be a Texas thing. More at DEEP IN THE HEART OF STUPID

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    I too, TChris, sat with my jaw dropped as Ms. Hutchinson spewed the above...and then as Russert gave her what amounted to a free pass. People lie to grand juries to cover things up. Interestingly, this investigation was originally handled by the justice dept. under Ashcroft. It wasn't until Ashcroft recused himself that Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to continue the investigation. It is fair to say that the key players felt much more collegial with the Ashcroft crowd and never dreamed that a crackshot investigator like Fitzgerald would be re-examining their testimony. Perjury is never okay. I would argue that it is least morally unacceptable when the person is trying to avoid embarassment (as in, don't tell my wife I did the dirty!). Perjury is the most serious for our government officials when they are trying to cover up abuse of power and criminal wrongdoing. Forget about Clinton in this case - think Nixon. Dean, Haldeman and Erlichman's perjury were protecting a president's criminal actions. If the tapes weren't discovered (dying for the W. tapes to surface!!) and Nixon implicated, we would have only had the perjury charges. However, to a zealous prosecutor like Ken Starr or Fitzgerald, they have an obligation to investigate discrepancies in testimony, regardless of the magnitude in their opinion of the offense. Ultimately, the people must judge misdeeds, once discovered. My question is, what are you people going to do if you discover that Cheney and Rove went after Wilson and lied to the grand jury to cover up manufactured evidence of Saddam's WMD program???

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Let's see, PPJ says the uncovering of a NOC at the CIA and blowing the cover of the company Brewster-Jennings wasn't a crime? And that, contrary to numerous ex-CIA agents, being a NOC isn't covert. I would like to know why his knowledge, not based on firsthand experience working for the CIA, of which 40% of their covert agents are made up of NOC's, gives him better insight into whether or not a crime has been committed. Apparently the CIA thought there was enough evidence of a crime since they were the agency that asked the DOJ to investigate. So PPJ just exactly what makes you more "in the know" about the operations of the Company than someone like Larry Johnson? Or could it be more of the "I am PPJ and I don't need facts or a brain to back up what I say" style of debating? I think this is more the case than you actually knowing what you are talking about. And the same goes for your pal James "I'm not as crazy as my brother Pat, but almost" Robertson.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    James Robertson says: "You know, just like the Clinton matter." I say: Better an unwise hummer than an unarmored humvee.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Some people just have no sense of humor at all, hey?
    Publish Date: 20-Oct-2005 A Vancouver lawyer has won a procedural victory in her attempt to prosecute U.S. President George W. Bush under the Criminal Code [of Canada]. Gail Davidson, cofounder of an international group of jurists called Lawyers Against the War, expressed her delight on October 18 following the lifting of a publication ban on court proceedings against the U.S. president. “It’s great news, but really they had no choice,” Davidson told the Georgia Straight. The Kitsilano lawyer got the ball rolling against Bush as soon as he set foot on Canadian soil for his November 30, 2004, visit. As a private citizen, she charged him with seven counts of counselling, aiding, and abetting torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay naval base. She had her charges accepted by a justice of the peace in Vancouver Provincial Court. Bush faces prison time if the case goes to trial and he is found guilty.
    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Was Mrs. Wilson a covert agent? Some say yes, some say no. (I say no.) If the SP thinks so, he should indict and try. But politics is blood sports, and all the denials, posturing and other BS associated with this issue should be cheerfully ignored by the legal profession. And that includes Fitzgerald.
    I think the CIA knows best of all if Plame is covert, and they were the ones who wanted a prosecutor so I think we should assume she was indeed covert. One thing to keep in mind is that when people do commit perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or destruction of evidence, it becomes very difficult to have the evidence to try people for the more serious crime that is committed. I am sure that if everyone in the whitehouse gave Fitzgerald a tell all of what happened he could definitely prosecute someone for the original leak. When they hide the truth, sometimes all you can prosecute them for is hiding the truth. As to the comparisons with Clinton, besides what everyone else here has mentioned (the seriousness of what the lie was about) the other issue with clinton was not is perjury not a real crime, but is is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of impeachment? Just saying that perjury is not a big deal and deserving of no punishment when government officials do it makes a mockery of our judicial system. It was a bad thing when Clinton did it, though Starr had already made a mockery of our legal system at the point Clinton did it.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#20)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Sen. Frist: "There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors...Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor...The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Kyl: "...there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses...John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society' than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. DeWine: "Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice...Perjury is also a very serious crime...The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth-so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies-so that injustice may prevail." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Talent: "Nobody else in a position of trust, not a CEO, not a labor union leader, not a principal of a school could do half of what the president has done and stay in office. I mean, who would have said a year ago that a president could perjure himself and obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses... and stay in office." [CNBC, "Hardball," 12/19/98] Sen. McConnell: "I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Voinovich: "As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Hutchison: "The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy." [AP, 2/12/99] Sen. Craig: "There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Brownback: "Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    PPJ the hypocrite: Remember saying this PPJ: Posted by Jim at October 16, 2003 05:24 PM "NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced." Yes, and I did not have sex with that woman.... As Sen Kerry (NE)said, "Bill Clinton is a liar. A very good liar." Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 02:38 PM et al - "The Republicans and Ken Starr bear the brunt of the blame." Let me see. The Repubs forced Clinton to get a BJ from Monica. No. The Repubs forced Monica to give Bill a BJ. No... Pardon me while I fall down laughing. Demo - The real loser in this affair was women's rights. In fact NOW has become marginalized. A pity, because many of the complaints were real, and needed addressing. Posted by Poker Plkayer (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 03:50 PM aw - The issue is not bad choices. The issue is TL blaiming the Repubs for Clinton and Monica's bad choices. And NOW defending him in what is obviously hypocritical nonsense. Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 07:54 PM rukus - Down here we call him Bill, or Slick Willie, which I understand he finds very nice, so be sure and call him that every chance you get. J man - What should a 20 year old know? Anyway, I agree on the "nodoby's business part," and thought that the Repubs were stupid to try and use it in the '98 elections. They were rewarded with poor results. At that time the country was a peace, the economy was out of sight and all we could see was more of the same. I (almost) felt sorry for him, sometimes he looked like a deer in the headlights, realizing that he had destroyed himself. But..... Blaming the Repubs for his and her's actions is funny. No BJ, no lies, no what is "is" and etc., etc. But we are what we are. Jennifer, Paula, Juanita, Monica and the others show what Clinton was. No big deal, except two out of the four say it wasn't consensual. Two said it was not. That's not a good batting average. hOW ABOUT THIS Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 26, 2004 08:37 AM VJ - If Ireland did so she did it so quietly no one noticed. Here is one thing she did say: "Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, said, "On balance, women have had an ally in the White House. If this reactionary campaign succeeds, the unfinished agenda of women on equality, in Social Security, pay equity, child care, anti-poverty remedies, minimum wage, Medicare, real campaign-finance reform . . . will continue to languish in Congress." Quite an attack. Translation. We forgive him because his politics are right. You also say, "Innuendo and vicious slander may accompany them to the end of their days, but the Clinton's have never been found guilty by anyone of ANY crime." Uh, I think perjury is a crime. And I think Clinton has been found guilty of it. And I think he can not practice law in the state Arkansas because of it. What Jim says today: Posted by JimakaPPJ at October 24, 2005 08:18 AM et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. Funny, I cannot find anything to support this BS statement.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Rewriting history again are ya Jim?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#23)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    1) Clinton's shenanigans have nothing to do with the matter at hand. 2) If anything, a better comparison would be with the West Wing, where Toby Ziegler just got unceremoniously escorted out of the White House one of hour after admitting to having leaked classified information to the press. 2) It is not clear that the indictments will be limited to perjury, or obstruction of justice. 3) PPJ's tactic of simulating a controversy where there isn't one is transparent. There is no doubt that Valerie Plame was a covert agent. 4) I love seeing the wingnuts squirm.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#24)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    5) Obviously, I can't count.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    ppj is busy choking on his own vomit.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Jlvngstn well done

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#27)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    hmmmm, someone want to give me the link showing where bill clinton was indicted, for anything, including poor taste in women? i thought not. yes, perjury is a crime, whether it's lying about getting a bj from a woman not your wife, or matters of national security. that said, if every guy who perjured himself, regarding sex with someone not his wife, were prosecuted, we'd have to release all those non-violent drug offenders, to make room for them. on the other hand, it will require much less space to house those convicted of the latter, should it prove to be the case. ppj, good of you to relieve mr. fitzgerald from concerns about what the talking heads/headettes have to say, regarding his investigation. i'm sure he appreciates it.
    My question is, what are you people going to do if you discover that Cheney and Rove went after Wilson and lied to the grand jury to cover up manufactured evidence of Saddam's WMD program???
    an interesting question, mfox.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    JL - So where did I say, in all your references, that what the Repubs did to Clinton should have been done? Fact is, I didn't. You quoted me:
    Jman - What should a 20 year old know? Anyway, I agree on the "nodoby's business part," and thought that the Repubs were stupid to try and use it in the '98 elections. (date of my quote not provided by JL.) Posted by JimakaPPJ at October 24, 2005 08:18 AM et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton.
    JL writes:
    Funny, I cannot find anything to support this BS statement.
    You may read my quotes from your comments. Perhaps you don't read your own comments. So what is your point, that I noted what Clinton had done, and what happened to him? BTW – Ireland said:
    Medicare. . . will continue to languish in Congress."
    Well, it did. That is until Medicare RX was added by Bush. BTW – What does your very first comment, in which you quote me saying I don’t believe Clinton warned Bush that OBL was the highest security risk have to do with any of this? You are the one trying to twist words, JL, not me. DP writes:
    Politics should be better than that.
    Perhaps, but it was the Demos who gave that definition. Carville, wasn’t it? J.B. writes:
    I think the CIA knows best of all if Plame is covert, and they were the ones who wanted a prosecutor so I think we should assume she was indeed covert.
    You think, I think…everybody thinks. The SP may, or may not, think. Remember that a*s u me is how assume is spelled. As for the CIA… They may actually think she was. They may think she was not…. And made the charged as a CYA ….And made the charge to show the troops they will fight for them….And made the charge to place a chilling effect on people talking about CIA agents… And made the charges to embarrass the Bush administration… or any combination of the above. As I say, I’ll wait for the SP, and if he indicts on that, I hope we get to see what a jury says. The Hertik writes:
    No truth ever rose from denying a lie is a lie is a lie. Must be a Texas thing.
    Hmmmmm…. “I did not have sex with that woman…” Now where did I here that….? mfox writes:
    I say: Better an unwise hummer than an unarmored humvee.
    Catchy. How about an uninvited hummer request? Perhaps you can ask Paula Jones, and millions of other women, how they feel about such things. And perhaps you can tell us why we should have either? edgey – Keep dreaming. Remember, I’m the guy in the back of the room grinning at your BS . et al – Attack the messenger all you want, but you are not going to find where I said that what the Repubs did was right. In the meantime, you will find that defending Clinton’s many outrageous acts is counter-productive. People were embarrassed by them, but didn’t think they were criminal, although he was sanctioned by the AR courts. Bringing it all back up merely provides a justification for not doing anything now. So keep it up. Limbaugh is depending on you.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    PPJ - Two things, all dates are included in the above, not edited at all. That quote was from June of 2004, when you knew full well that some republicans were going to get hit with indictments at some point based on their shameful acts. Second, you said "et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton." Show me evidence that supports "all along". I don't see it. I posted every comment i could find relevant to the perjury and could only find one veiled reference to "how the repubs used it in 98" that supports your statement today. You continually demonstrate that you are a fraud. A right winger who stretches the truth and outright lies. you have never said that the actions of the repubs were outright wrong on this site. What you said was that they were wrong to use it in an election campaign. I really do not need to comment any further, your words tell the whole story here...

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    So, if someone committed perjury even though no crime was committed by leaking Plame's name, is their prosecution purely 'politcal'? TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    charley, just what exactly makes Joseph Wilson's credibility shaky? Oh yeah, you are just parroting the RNC talking points. So you don't have any concrete facts to back up your assertions? What else is new. PPJ, I see in your lame attempt at smacking down everyone who showed what a shameless liar you are you didn't even touch on my comments to you. Ahhh, I see you are still playing the oh-so-mature know it all and sticking with your petty "I don't think the future of america is in good hands if their are people like you ShermBuck so I won't talk to you" defense of avoiding me. But I hate to tell you (no I don't, not really) that the FACT that Valerie Plame was a NOC working at Langley. This, unfortunately, has been proven as fact. Then you comment on here( in what looks like one of the most rambling, nonsensical diatribes I have ever seen)saying the CIA isn't sure of what they know. WTF!!? And you really think this is a valid counter? What? Of freaking course the CIA knows if she was a NOC or not, don't be ridiculous! Nobody is assuming anything about VP's job or what front company she worked for. The only thing in dispute is which traitorous S.O.B. for purely infantile revenge/political reasons(infantile being a word I'm sure is used to reference you behind your back on a daily basis) outed a covert CIA agent who was working on WMD proliferation. Period.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    charley, my advice to you is quit trying to sound intelligent. You do a very poor job of it.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Hit post too soon. charley, are you trying to say that outing the identity of a confirmed NOC at the CIA isn't a crime? If so then you need to do a little more research, and not just in the archives of the Corner, the RNC website, or any other hack site. I'm sure you are silly enough to really believe there is a "liberal" media, but you might be surprised what facts are out there right now. Like the fact that Valerie Plames position at the Corporation was as a NOC(non-official cover) and that 40% of the covert agents working for the Corp. are of the same designation. The go to HQ everyday, work behind a desk, and gather information through a series of blinds and front companies. The majority of agents in the field work through U.S. embassies and U.S. missions, and they are pretty much well known to foreign governments. The others, the NOCs, are unknown to everyone except those that work with them at HQ, their spouses(if any), and their division/dept. heads. That's it. Once Valerie Plames name was outed all of her contacts, even the ones in ally countries, would have been rounded up and debriefed by their respective intelligence agencies. We'll never know if any of them every made it home since the names of her contacts was and is CLASSIFIED information. So chumpley,err... I mean charley, get your FACTS straight before you start spewing more talking points about no crime had taken place.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#34)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Charley, why do you care if these government officials are indicted? They don't care about you.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    JL - Your bitterness blinds you to what you write. And I just love it when you say what I think. Obviously you are incapable of that, and look foolish to keep repeating it. I also love it when your haste leads you make such statements as:
    Two things, all dates are included in the above, not edited at all. That quote was from June of 2004,
    So, you now say that the date was shown in the June 20... Okay, but how was anyone to know? Why don't you learn to HTML quote??? It is so easy, I am sure you can do it. Highlight what you want to quote. Place your pointer on "Quote" just above the comment field and "click." And no, I don't keep my own comments. Since my positions are consistent, it is not necessary.
    “you have never said that the actions of the repubs were outright wrong on this site. What you said was that they were wrong to use it in an election campaign.”
    Huh?
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at May 25, 2004 02:11 PM Clinton, who I was perfectly willing to let get all the BJ's he wanted… The impeachment, of course, was politics, just as Nixon's was, and just as Andrew Johnson's was.
    Additional research done by me will cost you a $20. donation to TalkLeft. Al - In case you don't know it, "The West Wing" is a TV SHOW. Sherm, baby, dude. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but life is short and time for old folks is precious... Read my reply to J.B. Both of you had the same comment. charley – I think that for perjury to be a crime the lie must be told under oath. Lying to a Federal Agent can be obstruction… Question, is if the person makes an honest mistake, remembers something wrong, etc., they can get in trouble. Which is why a good lawyer says, “Shut up. Don’t say anything.”

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Jim, you did not say "all along" that you did not care, you have provided one quote from 2004 after it was obvious that republicans and those close to prez were going to be indicted. You are a fraud. And it is clearly obvious that all of the quotes from the above are from the associative dates. I don't need to provide the links as it takes additional time. Your words are that of a bitter old man, who is a fraud. I see no one coming to your defense save for you. Which of course evidences that your words today are completely "bs" relative to what you have stated historically.....

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 07:54 PM rukus - Down here we call him Bill, or Slick Willie, which I understand he finds very nice, so be sure and call him that every chance you get. J man - What should a 20 year old know? Anyway, I agree on the "nodoby's business part," and thought that the Repubs were stupid to try and use it in the '98 elections. They were rewarded with poor results. At that time the country was a peace, the economy was out of sight and all we could see was more of the same. I (almost) felt sorry for him, sometimes he looked like a deer in the headlights, realizing that he had destroyed himself. But..... Blaming the Repubs for his and her's actions is funny. No BJ, no lies, no what is "is" and etc., etc. But we are what we are. Jennifer, Paula, Juanita, Monica and the others show what Clinton was. No big deal, except two out of the four say it wasn't consensual. Two said it was not. That's not a good batting average.
    Posted by Poker Plkayer (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 03:50 PM aw - The issue is not bad choices. The issue is TL blaiming the Repubs for Clinton and Monica's bad choices. And NOW defending him in what is obviously hypocritical nonsense.
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 26, 2004 08:37 AM VJ - If Ireland did so she did it so quietly no one noticed. Here is one thing she did say: "Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, said, "On balance, women have had an ally in the White House. If this reactionary campaign succeeds, the unfinished agenda of women on equality, in Social Security, pay equity, child care, anti-poverty remedies, minimum wage, Medicare, real campaign-finance reform . . . will continue to languish in Congress." Quite an attack. Translation. We forgive him because his politics are right. You also say, "Innuendo and vicious slander may accompany them to the end of their days, but the Clinton's have never been found guilty by anyone of ANY crime." Uh, I think perjury is a crime. And I think Clinton has been found guilty of it. And I think he can not practice law in the state Arkansas because of it
    .
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 02:38 PM et al - "The Republicans and Ken Starr bear the brunt of the blame." Let me see. The Repubs forced Clinton to get a BJ from Monica. No. The Repubs forced Monica to give Bill a BJ. No... Pardon me while I fall down laughing. Demo - The real loser in this affair was women's rights. In fact NOW has become marginalized. A pity, because many of the complaints were real, and needed addressing.
    All along? I am sorry Jim, I cannot seem to find the "actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton." All I see from you are cheap shots at him, defense of the repubs and tired empty arguments. Let's let the people decide. It is obvious that i think you are a fraud, but I am biased, i have read your drivel for 2+ years. Let's let everyone read your drivel from the past year and a half or so and see if you are consistent.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    JL - Defend me? You do understand that the blog is "TalkLeft," don't you? What you have done is make an attack, a personal attack, and when I refute your attack with actual quotes, you reject them and attack again. That is dishonesty at its worst. Like I said, contribute $20. to TL, if you have $20, and I'll give you some more. But no free rides for you. But for the benefit of the audience, I will remind them that I never said I liked Clinton, just that the Repubs were wrong for attacking him over his BJ statements. For some reason JL seems incapable of understanding that. In his world you cannot disagree on one thing and agree on another. Pity. At one point I thought he was smart.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    PPJ, resorting to name calling because your deceitful ways have been illustrated through your own words. I love the use of bold in your statement there, nice touch.
    I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton.
    This is what you said today, you have provided zero evidence to support that. I provided several links where you took great delight in Clintons failures, and you provided a truncated one that said, "it was politics". You have provided nothing to support your initial statement, which should be easy considering you have said it "time and again" I am just curious, how come you have been unable to provide any corroborating evidence? What I love most about this site is that Jeralyn does not dump comments from the past and everyone is susceptible to being called out on the carpet. Fortunately for me, you are consistently full of beans and it is easy to provide evidence.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    JL - You made a claim, I refuted it. Then you make the same claim, I provide additional information. It is obvious you cannot prove your claim, but you reject my information. I could go on forever, and all you would do is continue to reject it. I call that dishonest, If that hurts your feelings, sorry about that. You represent a typial Leftie who demands 100% agreement with their positions, or you are attacked. That is one of the reasons I Left the Demos when the Left. BTW - Are you so confused that you can't figure out that your very first comment/attack refuted your claims? I think not. I think you are gaming us. Sorry, doesn't work. TaTa.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    JL - Hmmm, looks like my game was delayed, so I have some time to educate you. From your first attack comment, at the end of it, you quoted me, and made a challenge.
    Posted by JimakaPPJ at October 24, 2005 08:18 AM et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. Funny, I cannot find anything to support this BS statement.
    Now, let’s look at that comment. Did I say that I liked Clinton? No. Did I say I agreed with Clinton? No. What I said was that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. Now, what is the context of what I said? Let’s look at the complete statement.
    et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. And if I had a dollar for every comment made by Demos/Lefies that match Hutchinson's I would have my $10,000 buy-in for the WSOP. The issue should always be, was the act a crime? A BJ wasn't.
    So what I said was, the issue was whether or not Clinton’s BJ and his post BJ actions, were not a crime, to me. I also pointed out the Clinton Cadre, and other Demos, had made many comments such as Hutchinson’s. Now, what did you use to attack me? You quoted me saying that Clinton didn’t tell Bush that OBL was a threat. I agree. I said that. What does that have to do with me saying the Repubs were wrong for attacking him about his BJ? I then threw in some sarcastic remarks about his relationship with the truth, I even used a Democratic Senator in that regards. But I didn’t say the Repubs should have used that as impeachment material…In fact, I said, and you quoted me, which I found very funny, I mean you refuted yourself:
    J man - What should a 20 year old know? Anyway, I agree on the "nodoby's business part," and thought that the Repubs were stupid to try and use it in the '98 elections.
    So my 10/24 comment is consistent with my 6/20/04 comment. But you won’t admit that you have made a mistake. So you challenge again. And you made the same quotation again, leaving out context. At that point I should have forced you to put the comment in context. I didn’t. So in spite of your calling me a hypocrite, a fraud, etc., I provided you another example:
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at May 25, 2004 02:11 PM Clinton, who I was perfectly willing to let get all the BJ's he wanted… The impeachment, of course, was politics, just as Nixon's was, and just as Andrew Johnson's was.
    This examples nails my comment that I thought what the Repubs had done was wrong, up to and including condemning the impeachment efforts. But you refuse to accept that. JL, if anyone is a fraud, it is you. You take statements out of context, try and use them, and when your actions are pointed out you just attack more. You have no credibility.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Jim, your desperation is showing. Check Mate.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    charley, wow, methinks I hit a nerve pointing out that you spout nothing but RNC/FNC talking points. I'm pretty much done with you if you can't get out there on the internets(I thought I would do that in Bush speak for you since you can't comprehend anything else) and look up Larry Johnson. He isn't on Kos and I've never even looked at the DU site so I'm not sure if he has ever written anything there, but nonetheless he was a longtime CIA agent and knows more about this situation then you or that tired old crumudgeon PPJerk. But let me know this, chuckie(since you want to be infantile and use the oh so effete method of making fun of me by putting an "i" ending on a shortened version of my name), where do you get your "facts" from? Because you see I can source, with links if need be, what I am saying, but I don't think you can. But in case I am wrong show me concrete proof that :1)Joseph Wilson's credibility is suspect; 2)Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent working for the Company; 3)and you don't just spew crap straight from Ken Mehlman and/or Roger Ailes(this one is a joke since you can't. Nothing you have ever posted here has ever been an original thought.) I won't hold my breath since you can't deal with facts. Your kind never can.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    JL - You have just been caught taking a comment out of context and making a savage personal attack based on false information. And I have rebuttd each point, although you did help me. And you think I'm desperate? Check the mirror, JL, check the mirror.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    Sure, PPj, if your rebuttals were accurate or thruthful they would require a response by me. Unfortunately for you, the 8 paragraph rebuttal does not refute the original allegation that you are a fraud, nor does the attempt at spin clear up your "time and again" statement. Again, the history of this blog provides light on topics, when i read your statements, I need prescription sunglasses to protect my eyes looking up your past remarks......

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    JL writes:
    Sure, PPj, if your rebuttals were accurate or thruthful
    You also wrote:
    What I love most about this site is that Jeralyn does not dump comments from the past
    My rebuttals consisted of what I had written on this blog. Yet you refuse to believe what you said you were so happy about. That's really, really funny. Your problem JL is that I am a liberal who supports the war, and rejects the Left's demand that everyone be anti-war. There are millions like me JL. We left the Democratic Party years ago. And you know what? Out of the last 37 years the Demos have managed to have a President for only 12 years. Does that tell you something?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    both charley and ppj are not-too bright trolls with their RNC talking points... the C.I.A. says Plame was covert, dudes, not just Joe Wilson...so what does his credibility have to do with anything? They either exposed an agent or didn't, and Joe Wilson's credibility has nothing to do with any investigation Fitz is conducting...try again... you guys sound very foolish spouting talking points that make no sense... Fitz was appointed to investigate the C.I.A.'s claim of a covert agent being exposed...the fact that you keep obsessing on Wilson shows that your politics trump your patriotism, if you had any, and that you will cling to any shred to keep stating that Bushco did nothing illegal in the Plame affair. you guys keep spouting about "where's your evidence..." Where the f$ck is your evidence, dudes? No evidence means no evidence, yet you scoff at the left's assertions while presenting your own as fact, and Fitz hasn't given either of you a personal call from what I know... So shut up unless you have something factual to say, as I did above, why don't you?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    DimakaPPJ: "You have just been caught taking a comment out of context and making a savage personal attack based on false information." I see you're talking to yourself again, Whizzy. The pain must be getting unbearable... All you accomplish when you try to hijack threads the way you've attempted to here is make yourself look childish, idiotic and ridiculous. Please keep doing it. You're doing more to marginalize the dying mindset of your heroes in this administration than everyone on the left could ever do. Thanks for being you. :-) TTFN, Whizzy!

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    And PPJ, add the previous eight years of Democratic rule and you have 20 out of 42 years, or just about half...your math is dishonest, as are you... What party is the only President to resign from? What is the party of Iran-Contra? Plame-Gate? You're such a hack it's actually amusing...

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#50)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    Charley, What you state is the standard for conviction, the standard to indict is much lower.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    edgey - Wrong as usual. If you will go back to my 10/24 8:18AM comment, you will see that it is exactly on subject, "Pre-Indictment Spinning." This was followed by a series of comments by others, more or less on subject until JL took a sentence out of context, and issued a very long personal attack. And you know the above is the truth, if you have an ounce of honesty in your body. We will now find out if you do. I wait for your apology. Jackal - And what is the party of "We won't defend the country?" You write: BTW - Some of us consider Iran-Contra a great piece of statecraft. We sell weapons to Iraq, who fights our enemy Iran. So we sell weapons to Iran, and use the money to get weapons for the contras who are fighting the communists, or enemies, in Central America. Of course the Left didn't like that. We were fighting their heroes.. You write:
    both charley and ppj are not-too bright trolls with their RNC talking points...
    You have a real potty mouth, and like to make personal attacks and insults, don't you. Oh well, let's look at some of your comments, shouldn’t take any effort to refute them.
    the C.I.A. says Plame was covert
    Leaving aside that it is highly amusing to see the Left making a great point of supporting the CIA... As I noted to J.B. and Shermbuck:
    As for the CIA… They may actually think she was. They may think she was not…. And made the charged as a CYA ….And made the charge to show the troops they will fight for them….And made the charge to place a chilling effect on people talking about CIA agents… And made the charges to embarrass the Bush administration… or any combination of the above. As I say, I’ll wait for the SP, and if he indicts on that, I hope we get to see what a jury says.
    I trust the above is not to complex for you. As for Wilson, this sheds some light on him. And this from the Senate Intelligence committee:
    Sen. Roberts continued: "When asked how [Wilson] 'knew' that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved 'a little literary flair.'"
    BTW, Jackal, do you ever provide any links, or do you just spew nasty marks and make claims? And you finish with:
    So shut up unless you have something factual to say, as I did above, why don't you?
    Telling people to shut up, especially when you have zero power to enforce your comment, is juvenile. What's next? You gonna throw a hissy fit? Hey, don’t hurt your head and heals when your laying on your back kicking and screaming.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    That's quite the rant there, dizzy! I'm impressed! Like I said: Please keep doing it... Thanks for being you. :-) TTFN, Whizzy!

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Whizzy:
    You have a real potty mouth, and like to make personal attacks and insults, don't you. Oh well, let's look at some of your comments [that have been refuted multiple times, BTW]
    TTFN, Whizzy!.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    ppj-once again your sources are utter garbage and long discredited, Is Hitchens your new drinking buddy, or should I say old drinking buddy? For the last several months all your links are old and outdated. Are you not keeping up with current events? Much has changed since july '04 when Hitchens wrote that smear, and to quote anything from Sen. Roberts' bogus Intelligence report is a joke these days. But they all show up as RNC talking points nonetheless and you seem to be the official echo chamber for them. I guess the good old days are to be relished by folks like you, as the present must be too painful to bear. Here is some up to date info, but perhaps it is a bit over your head.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#55)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Not quite Charley. You have evolved your argurment from Wilson's wife SENT HIM to Wilson's wife was involved in sending him. Informed commenters already know that Plame was involved. She introduced him to the people who were looking for a knowledgeable representative to go. He was also one of the most qualified individuals for the job. It was a no brainer to send him.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#56)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    That is if you were looking for facts.

    Pre-Indictment Spin Planning | 56 comments (56 topical)