Someone lied to the Grand Jury..
No question there was no crime. Wilson lied when he said he was sent to Niger by the VP. If any of the WH people lied to the GJ then they could face charges. Trouble is, so much has been made of this because the WH didn't come right out and call Wilson a liar when he published his yellow cake adventure story.
""At the end of the day," says the former intelligence official, "this could end up being a situation where there wasn't a crime until there was an investigation.""
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.
That's how Martha Stewart got nailed.
But the former intelligence official warns that it is possible that just some parts of Wilson's findings were classified — say, specific sources he contacted whose identities have not been revealed. If that is case, the official argues, then Wilson did not violate any laws in his statements to the press (even those statements that were later found to be untrue).
It looks like it was a set-up by Wilson along these lines: He lies about his findings that were (orally) reported back to the CIA. In order for the WH to refute his lies, they will have to release confidential information. Or at least that is Wilson's hope.
Wilson's ploy goes awry when he is instead discredited by the nepotism issue of his hiring, and then later the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. No classified info was leaked (as far as we know thus far), but Wilson tries to pin the "outing" of Plame on Rove as a reaction to his failed trap. It is now widely believed there was no crime committed in identifying his wife's involvement in his Niger assignment.
So, unless someone purgured themselves or obstructed justice during the inquiry, there will be no indictments.
All joking aside, it's rather funny to see a witch hunt end with no witches. Just a New York Times reporter with a big wart on her nose, a black cat, and a broom, but no real witches. The leftists are giddy with anticipation that Rove will be indicted. Watch for sales of razor blades and rat poison in the blue states to skyrocket in the next few days.
The media is going to look pretty foolish if there is no indictment.
Of course, the media looks pretty foolish anyway.
Seems to me the problem is with whoever made false statements or accused others of doing things it turns out they did not. If it's a crime to cover up a non-crime it certainly should be a crime to manufacture the same non-crime and cause the taxpayers to waste money persuing something that should never have been persued in the first place.
This is like punishing a child for supposedly knocking over a vase and breaking it but later learning that the vase was never broken. But in the course of finding that out the child doesn't co-operate with the vase "investigation" so the child gets punished anyway.
If Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to federal investigators for a crime she eventually was never convicted of what the hell happened to the people that lied to the same agency the investigators worked for that started the investigation in the first place? Why didn't they go to jail? Somebody lied when they said she committed a crime but it turns out she did not. Isn't that the same thing Martha went to jail for?
If Fitzgerald indicts Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, he better have a damn good, airtight case. Because if he indicts the shaky way Ronnie Earle did with Tom Delay, he is going to look like a horse's butt, just as Earle does. The real culprit here is the MSM and Joe Wilson. Wilson should be in prison for treason!!!
"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
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.
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?
"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.)
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.
As quoted above, the Espionage Act prohibits the disclosure of any "document," "writing," or "note" which is "related to the national defense."
It likewise prohibits disclosure of any "information relating to the national defense."
To focus on the more specific prohibitions of the Act, like disclosing "code books," is probably incorrect under the law and very bad policy. When you read a law, you have to read all of the words. This one clearly prohibits more than just the specific "code book"-type information from being disclosed -- you'd have to ignore the clear language of the statute to conclude only the specifically-named documents can't be shared.
And it seems to me to be extremely bad policy to conclude otherwise. Let's assume a situation where someone like Valerie Plame IS working on classified WMD work for the CIA, undercover. Does anyone really want to say that it's just fine to disclose that person's identity even though the disclosure is merely "information" related to national defense, and not a "code book" related to national defense?
If these were democrats, this would never have gotten this far. The libs can't do enough to discredit any conservative/republican. They'll even make up stuff. Disgusting creatures. They must be stopped or stomped..whichever comes first.