Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indicted? For What?
National Review Online ^ | 10/19/05 | Byron York

Posted on 10/19/2005 7:18:17 AM PDT by frankjr

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: frankjr
Bears repeating:

"this could end up being a situation where there wasn't a crime until there was an investigation."

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency

21 posted on 10/19/2005 8:16:08 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

The Democrats and the liberal media have been pumping up this witch hunt for months. Can't have a witch hunt without burning a witch. If the witch isn't a member of the Bush Administration, the witch hunters will be outraged.


22 posted on 10/19/2005 8:16:20 AM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
What if he's investigating CIA leaks to the press? Everyone is focused on the whole Valaery Plame thing, but what if it's more than that?

What if, while the media has been focused on Rove and Libby, the grand jury has been focusing on who is really leaking from the CIA to the press?

23 posted on 10/19/2005 8:18:58 AM PDT by McGavin999 (We're a First World Country with a Third World Press (Except for Hume & Garrett ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
No indictments???? Think again.
Here's what the New York Times said yesterday:

"By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm."

See? If Fitzgerald does not indict Bush Administration officials there will be "a political firestorm" (in the New York Times newsroom). So Fitzgerald MUST indict....OH! He simply MUST! MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST!

(Or there will be a political firestorm in the New York Times newsroom.)

24 posted on 10/19/2005 8:30:43 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cracker

"It's not the crime, it's the cover up."


Still, how can you cover something that did not exist in the first place?


25 posted on 10/19/2005 8:45:07 AM PDT by sabatino28 (God save us all!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Well, it wouldn't be the first time....

or the last.



"The media is going to look pretty foolish if there is no indictment.

Of course, the media looks pretty foolish anyway."


26 posted on 10/19/2005 9:07:44 AM PDT by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
"Wilson lied when he said he was sent to Niger by the VP."

Betcha ten bucks you can't quote Wilson where he said that.

I'm not saying Wilson hasn't said some things of questionable veracity. But this continuing drumbeat that he claimed Cheney sent him to Niger is just not true. In his own words, he said that Cheney asked the Agency to look into the reports, and the Agency decided to send Wilson. Even in his earliest media appearances, he said he didn't know Cheney and had never met him or spoken to him about Niger, and that Cheney didn't send him.

So why the need to manufacture a 'lie' that Wilson didn't tell?

27 posted on 10/19/2005 9:18:46 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Timeline and Dates

Here are some facts I have managed to gather and an interesting timeline to put things in perspective:

02/2002 - Wilson travels to Niger at the behest of the CIA to confirm British Intelligence reports that Saddam sought yellowcake uranium ore.

5/02/03 - In the Boston Globe on 10/02/05, Wilson states that he has been advising the Kerry campaign for about 5 months. At this time, Wilson in acting as a source for NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof. Has Mr. Kristof been subpoenaed?

7/06/03 - Wilson writes his famous "What I Didnt Find in Africa" article for the NYT. Mind you, he was a Kerry adviser at the time and apparently trying to influence a campaign. The claims in his article are later found to be false and it appears deliberately misstated.

7/14/03 - The Novak article comes out identifying Valerie Plame.

7/29/04 - The Senate Committe investigating Wilson's report discredits it and says it was wrong and useless.

Matt Cooper of Time has testified that he called Rove initially, but it was Rove who said that Wilson's wife was CIA, but Rove didnt say she was covert and didnt name her.

Cooper subsequently brought up Plame's identity with Libby, who only confirmed it for him.

Rove confirmed Plame's identity with Novak.

Valerie's last overseas posting (strange wording by Mr. Wilson himself) ended in 1997, however, some reports say her cover was blown earlier by Aldrich Ames in 1994.

European and British intelligence agencies still stand by the claim that Iraq sought yellowcake from Niger.

Plame met Wilson in 1997, Wilson divorced his wife in 1998, he and Plame bought a house together in 1998. How, exactly, are affairs with married men by covert operatives considered by the CIA?

Valerie revealed her status as a NOC on her 3rd or 4th "date" with Wilson, according to Vanity Fair.

The upshot, while working for the Kerry campaign, Wilson wrote an untruthful column for the New York Times to smear Bush by altering the facts he gathered from a CIA mission.

A mission that he got because of his wife. The Senate later discredited Wilson's claims and came to the opposite conclusion from his report. Wilson had claimed that Plame had nothing to do with it.

After being discredited, Wilson was dropped from the Kerry campaign.

28 posted on 10/19/2005 9:19:58 AM PDT by opticoax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Try the Atlantic.


29 posted on 10/19/2005 9:44:38 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Troubled by NOLA looting ? You ain't seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Someone lied to the Grand Jury..

What is the statute of limitations for lying to a Grand Jury? Do all perjury investigations, regarding testimony given to that jury, end with the disbanding of that jury?

30 posted on 10/19/2005 9:46:35 AM PDT by syriacus (Don't look for medical breakthroughs to be accomplished by pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia doctors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Atlantic or New Yorker.


31 posted on 10/19/2005 9:47:39 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Troubled by NOLA looting ? You ain't seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

President Clinton is a perfect example that if you're on the left it doesn't matter what you do, you'll get a free pass...and that if you're on the right, it doesn't matter what you DON'T do, you'll soon be climbing into an orange jumpsuit.


32 posted on 10/19/2005 9:53:17 AM PDT by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

You got a quote, or not?


33 posted on 10/19/2005 9:54:09 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: daler

"President Clinton is a perfect example that if you're on the left it doesn't matter what you do, you'll get a free pass...and that if you're on the right, it doesn't matter what you DON'T do, you'll soon be climbing into an orange jumpsuit."


You are talking about the Senate - the Presidential equivalent of the trial. We are at the indictment/impeachment stage and Clinton was impeached.


34 posted on 10/19/2005 9:59:42 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
On at least 2 broadcasts of Hardball*, Andrea Mitchell said Wilson claimed he was sent by Cheney.

Why would Mitchell lie?

Mitchell, claiming she wanted to "clear something up," stated that "[t]here had been inaccurate reporting -- some of it came from Wilson's mouth himself -- that he was dispatched by the vice president."
* October 13, October 18
35 posted on 10/19/2005 10:02:42 AM PDT by syriacus (Don't look for medical breakthroughs to be accomplished by pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia doctors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
"So basically this article is an indirect way of saying that if there was a crime it's probably obstruction of justice or perjury or something like that."

Please don't equivocate. They are trying to make bogus application of various laws to the political play of Washington. Any charges against the White House or staff will be bogus> But there should a charge against Joe Wilson, a former ambassador, who lied through his teeth to hurt the White House so Kerry would win. Wilson should do time in jail and in h*ll for his actions.

36 posted on 10/19/2005 10:05:54 AM PDT by Rapscallion (It goes far deeper than contempt of Congress and politics by investigation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
"So basically this article is an indirect way of saying that if there was a crime it's probably obstruction of justice or perjury or something like that."

Please don't equivocate. They are trying to make bogus application of various laws to the political play of Washington. Any charges against the White House or staff will be bogus. But there should a charge against Joe Wilson, a former ambassador, who lied through his teeth to hurt the White House so Kerry would win.

Wilson should do time in jail and in h*ll for his actions.

37 posted on 10/19/2005 10:07:09 AM PDT by Rapscallion (It goes far deeper than contempt of Congress and politics by investigation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Don't keep old magazines except for Classic Bike.


38 posted on 10/19/2005 10:09:48 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Troubled by NOLA looting ? You ain't seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Lots of folks SAY he said it. No one seems to be able to point to where and when he said it.

They don't have to be lying. They could just be wrong. Or just repeating what they heard someone else say. Lazy reporters, and lazy bloggers, and lazy posters do that all the time.

39 posted on 10/19/2005 10:13:48 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

To paraphrase/summarize Ayn Rand:
There is no way to control innocent men.
The solution (for those who see this as a problem) is to create a plethora of laws whereby everyone is guilty of something.
We have a plethora of laws. Rove et al are guilty of something and thereby controllable, if only a motivated prosecutor can find a suitable law.


40 posted on 10/19/2005 10:14:36 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson