Posted on 10/22/2005 7:16:36 PM PDT by churchillbuff
just suppose....perhaps the Ambassador was helping himself to a little "Oil for Food"...and that on his little trip to Nigeria someone was watching his bank account just to see what would happen.............hmmmmm. Might come home really pissed off at ole Rove!!!!
LoL! If I remember correctly, the Grand Jury disbands on or after 28th of October. Fitzgerald has got to make some decision by then.
The suggested gravity could well translate to the pursuit of a CIA-based conspiracy to undermine a sitting President during time of war.
Given that a.) an IIPA case seems inappropriate, b.) an Espionage Act charge against Rove/Libby seems a far stretch and c.) the SP was broadly charged with "following where the evidence leads", "the gravity of the reported crime" and invoking "national security" suggests a far deeper and more serious affair is under investigation.
If this is the case why did Miller spend 85 days in jail? What was she protecting her source from?
Are you saying that Miller is a complete idiot especially when Libby not once, but twice gave her a release before she went to jail?
What's your theory on why Miller went to jail? Do you actually buy her explanation?
That's the gist of it.
Now here is where I confound myself. What makes me believe I know more than the NYT, Matthews, Washington Post, all liberal pundents. They are smart people and it seeems to them to be the most logical explaination?I want the Bush administration to be exonnerated. They want the Bush administration to go down in flames. They have their theory. I have my theory. Am I delusional or are they delusional? I believe I am correct notwithstanding all of their inside information and intellect. I believe I am correct because it would be out of character for Bush, Rove, and his administration to behave outside of the law. That is not what any of the Bush administration has been about.
It seems in character with the CIA from Tenent on down to think they would like to do it. All, then, it took would be to have a ballsy group think they will try to do it. Someone with hubris of a grizzley bear. Someone who believes he can outfox all of the guns at the White HOuse. Someone like Wilson. He does his little thing and sits back and waits and sees whether it takes, perhaps with the help of some media friends. Could they throw enough crap against the barn door that some might stick.
Yes that is the only thing that makes sense. With all of the rumor, confabulation, smokescreens, and the rest,....that is the only thing that makes sense.
Now, is Fitzgerald an honest American lawyer. They are as scarce as hens teeth, but I believe that he is, from all accounts. The problem is that all of the accounts come from the MSM.
Would this surprise anyone? Does anybody seriously buy Miller's explanation of why she spent 85 days in jail and then suddenly Libby decides to release her after all that time?
"just suppose....perhaps the Ambassador was helping himself to a little "Oil for Food"...and that on his little trip to Niger someone was watching his bank account just to see what would happen.............hmmmmm. Might come home really pissed off at ole Rove!!!!"
With regard to Wilson's business interests, see this FR post -\http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1256475/posts - entitled "What Wilson Didn't Say About Africa."
Interesting excerpt: "Wilson ran his company out of the offices of an investment company called Rock Creek Corporation. Rock Creek was controlled by Mohammed Alamoudi, whom Wilson had met in 1997 at a reception organized for the World Bank by Westar Group. Alamoudi was a member of the Saudi-Ethiopian Alamoudi dynasty, which was heavily invested in the segments of the African economy Wilson was seeking to penetrate. The Alamoudi-affiliated company Delta Services--a Swiss subsidiary of the Saudi company Delta Oil--handled Iraqi oil export contracts in 2000 and 2001 and was revealed in 2003 as a recipient of Iraqi Oil-for-Food vouchers channeled through Abu Abbas, a Palestinian terrorist with Iraqi connections."
hmmm..it would appear there really is basis for such speculation!!! This guy is scum.
"the gravity of the reported crime" and invoking "national security" suggests a far deeper and more serious affair is under investigation."
No, it doesn't. And as even Larry Zero Donnell confirmed, the judge doesn't think so either.
I don't know why everyone is so eager to go flying off the handle. This was about an alleged leak of an alleged covert CIA officer.
That's it. And it is SILLY to try to make it into something else.
Look at the list of those who appeared before the Grand Jury. Sheesh.
Who are the people who were summoned before the Grand Jury that would be able to testify about "oil for food"?
Why is everyone so eager to ignore the simple facts of the case. This is just plain goofy.
Oh, that was merely a return volley from the CIA in its war against the DIA.
But "something else" was what churchillsbluff was trying to make of it.
My point was that, if the affair was so serious as the article implied, it would mean that the scope of the investigation had been expanded to stuff that was really serious -- well beyond a contrived perjury or obstruction charge.
Which, of course, would be an outcome that the original poster would not favor...
Aha---I think you have got it, Sherlock!
LOL
"My point was that, if the affair was so serious as the article implied, it would mean that the scope of the investigation had been expanded to stuff that was really serious -- well beyond a contrived perjury or obstruction charge."
The seriousness is the IIAP law. This is from the February hearing deciding whether to put Miller and Cooper in jail for not cooperating with Fitzgerald.
I've seen nothing to indicate that Fitzgerald has ever been investigating anything else. And as even "Madman" Larry O'Donnell concedes, the judge says that's what this is about.
Don't let people like Churchillbuff (LOL) confuse you.
"Who are the people who were summoned before the Grand Jury that would be able to testify about "oil for food"?
Why is everyone so eager to ignore the simple facts of the case. This is just plain goofy."
Because we want to understand the context of the case. There is "the case" and there is how it came about.
If there were indictments, I assume that the Defense attorneys would start a discovery process vis-a-vis Mr. Wilson, going into his character, motivations, etc., and if there were firm evidence that what we are talking about were true, then that would be introduced into the case.
I think feedback at # 31 is on to something too, at least as far as theorizing the illegal outing of Plame is not the serious national security threat which Fitzgerald used to convince the 3 judge panel to jail reporters, if they refused to testify. There has to be another, bigger crime. OR could it be Fitzgerald was looking to indict the Vice President for outting Plame? Now THAT would qualify as a BIG crime, worthy of all those redacted pages Fitzgerald sent to the 3 judge panel.
Considering his reputation, I can't imagine Fitzgerald would use over the top, hyperbolic language to sway those judges. He had all those redacted pages of proof he was after something big, something that affected our national security.
Perdogg at #34 raises another question when he writes: "the proscecuter goes to the gJ and asks if there is enough evidence to issue a bill of indictment on preponderance of the evidence. 12 jurors out of 16-23 must vote in the affirmative to carry the bill of indictment. This is according to Rule 6(e)."
According to all accounts I've read, Fitzgerald hasn't decided yet whether to issue indictments or not, which defies logic, considering the language Fitzgerald used to convince the 3 judge panel to let him jail reporters to force their testimony. Has the GJ voted already? Do they have to vote, or could Fitzgerald simply say "thanks" and send them packing without voting? The Grand Jury doesn't meet again till Wednesday.
One thing for certain, finding 12 DC jurors out of 16, who would vote to indict any Bush administration member, would not be hard at all.
I go from optimistic to gloomy doom. Mostly, I just want this suspense to end.
Except we don't know who has appeared before the Grand Jury as the F list you reference implicitly acknowledges (it says that John Hannah and David Wurmser are believed to have appeared). And how do we know what all those appearing were asked about any way. Just what do Hannah and Wurmser have to do with the Plame leak?
It may be about a lot else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.