Makes sense to me. When prosecutions don't end the way liberals like, they violate double jepeordy and retry them on civil rights.

Which right, the right not to be embarrased in public by your lying attempt to affect a campaign and become a coctail-circuit darling?

It's ironic that so much of the details of this case emanate from a Grand Jury, whose procedings are supposedly secret. That hispanic guy, Senor Administration-Official, sure does talk a bunch. When do we convene another Grand Jury to investigate the leaks in this story?

I'm frankly amazed that Bush doesn't just call a press conference and remind our frothing media that even if Rovediddit, no law has been broken. You can't out a CIA desk analyst. She wasn't acting as an operative, she wasn't abroad, she certainly wasn't undercover, and hadn't been for the past five years. You also have to prove it was done maliciously.

Here's what I'm wondering about: How much of this is legitimate prosecution and how much of it was hatched in the twisted minds at the DNC? "One concocted controversy after another" is the phrase that Teddy Kennedy used in another context. At what point does dirty politics cross the line and become treason?

not a very good scoop, in my opinion. civil rights violations, that crazy. joe wilson lied, and cheney and whoever has the right to expose him as a liar. no law against calling a liar a liar. i may be wrong, but i gotta go with lopez at nro, "no indictments."

"Civil rights"? Wow, a fart in the wind has a better chance of survival than that claim.

Cool... when did we get the "Right to Lie" without being called on it ? Someone get Dan Rather on the phone ASAP! He's gonna want to hear this!

Besides, wouldn't what they're presenting be considered libel and isn't libel typically handled as a civil suit ?

- MikeB

I don’t really care much ether way about this whole topic. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Wilson himself ends up facing charges at some point.

I was amazed at the speed with witch the Kerry campaign dropped him when this story started getting hot. Something made him taboo.

These "people" are so wacked. Let's see what Fitzgerald say's tomorrow or Friday if not watching Israel bomb Iran first on CNN that is.

MikeB nailed it.

Civil rights violations and defamation issues would not be handled by a criminal prosecutor or grand jury. This is nonsense.

Well Mark I'm sure that your assertion about the handling of civil rights matters will greatly interest Stacy Koon et al, since that is what they were prosecuted for. Police officers are charge with criminal viloations of civil rights all the time. They are investigated by the FBI / DoJ and prosecuted accordingly.

Standard Disclaimer: This post in no way implies approval of the beating of Rodney King by Stacy Koon and associates. Anyone who takes it that way is wrong.

Once again this whole debacle is the administrations fault.
1) After the CIA made the referal for an investigation into the alleged leaking of a CIA agent, the administration should have required the SP to see if any statute had been violated before going foward with the investigation into the leak. Clearly if you read the stipulations in the Identity Act of 82' no provisions can be met.
Was the CIA actively trying to conceal her identity? NO! Was she out of the country on assignment within the last five years?NO! Her name was not even mentioned by Libby or Rove, so the maliciosness part of the statute can't be met.
2) The espionage act can't be used as the basis of the crime because it mostly releates to war time activities regarding thing like posts, stations and military equipment.
3) Joe Wilson is effectively responsible for outing his wife. There was in effect a covert operation conducted by the CIA against the Bush Administration. The woman who wrote the 1982 Identitys Act was on Hannity and her speculation made so much sense that it boils the blood.
In normal situations the person sent to investigate on the part of the CIA would have had to sign a confidentiality agreement in order to protect the info he aquired, Wilson was never asked to sign such an agreement. He wrote no official report, and the info he relayed to the CIA debriefers contradicted the story he wrote about in the Times. Why was Wilson chosen to go to Niger, he was an ex-diplomat with no background in WMD research or investigation and was a Democrat that who worked in the Clinton Administration. Why would he be the one to be sent to collect data? Because his wife recommended him, even George Tenent didn't know who sent him. Rouge elements in the CIA selected him to be the hatchet man.
4) In his later Times article and subsiquent interviews in the press, Wilson claimed that he was sent to Niger at the request of VP Cheney, why would Wilson be suprised that the administration would seek to find out who sent him and why. Shouldn't Wilson and his wife have realized that sooner or later the trail would lead back to Plame. According to beltway reporter Andrea Mitchell, it was common knowledge on the cocktail circuit that Plame worked at the CIA. This proves that she, her husband and the CIA were not actively trying to conceal her identity.
What we are going to see are indictments handed down where no underlying crime was committed.
As Byron York has said so precisely is that there was no crime committed until there was an investigation.

Wow. Perjury's a technicality. Civil right's violations are a joke. Interesting to watch how the so called "moral" party implodes at the first sign of self-reflection. Laws are laws. I guess when Fitzgerald brings out the indictments (which WILL happen unless you're completely ignorant of the case), you all will find some other way to rationalize corruption.

I guess it never occured to any of you the unwillingness of this administration retrieve All the available intel before sending us to war. That's what real issue here.

"Go ahead Mr. President, tell us about Iraq and Uranium" "Go ahead Mr. Vice President, tell us about mushroom clouds" "We believe you" "I'm sure anyone against you are surely BAD People" "Cause we're the MORAL party!"

truly pathetic

Civil rights violations are not libel. They're two different things. Federal prosecutors often use civil rights violations as a way to bring Federal charges when the state won't prosecute, or when someone gets off on another charge (hey, everyone thought it was pretty clever when they got Al Capone on tax evasion.)

And by the way, if Fitzgerald does bring civil rights charges, how is this in any way "liberals" bringing charges? Talk about a knee jerk response.

And Radical centrist, congratulations. You managed to bring up every innacurate and discredited theory in the history of this case. It's pretty impressive when you see them all gathered in one place like that.

Houston:

No underlying crime has been committed prior to the investigation. There should never have been an investigation. It appears we are going to see indictments handed down because Rove/Libby couldn't recolect who said what to whom when about something that is not a crime that happened 3 years ago.

Chris:

Please describe any innacuracies in what I wrote.

Given the burden of proof requirement, there's plenty of room to my view, as to this issue, to establish Wilson's "employability" and otherwise, "ability to earn a living" before the wife/NYT issues emerged. As in, there is Wilson himself and it seems to my view that there's ample suggestion there that he-had-issues long before he-had-issues.

It's rare that any individual gets a grand jury involved with access to the CIA and White House and all sorts of super secret things on a civil rights violations complaint. Most federal employees will snicker and ridicule the very notion of such a complaint, in my experience, if not most citizens at large. It's just not a meat&taters force of nature, and as many here, this thread, point out, it's assumed to be moreorless a "slip and fall" type cover complaint by those with otherwise predetermined bad intentions.

Not actually, individually (sometimes the complaint applies) but that it's assumed today to be so. And complaints like Wilson's are the reasons why.

I hope Fitzgergald does not spring this on the world tomorrow or so, because it seems such a catch-all butterfly net affront, as if they were compelled to allege SOMEthing, so, hey, civil rights' violations.

S:
Huh? What?

TYPO, sorry...my first comments, this thread, I omitted a key term:

There's plenty of room to establish PROBLEMS WITH Joe Wilson's "employability" and otherwise, "ability to earn a living" before the wife/NYT issues emerged.

Meaning, to my view, Wilson seems to be someone who indicated he was having credibilty problems BEFORE this issue as to Plame/NYT/Kovak column and all the rest appeared.

IN FACT, the issue itself (Plame, et al.) seems to be a product of Wilson's credibility, from whence his specific difficulties afterward arose. He IS suggestive of a person just ripe for the pose of victimization, as in, someone was going to be found who would be held accountable, it was just a matter of time and opportunity for Wilson, an opportunist-of-political-sorts.

Radical Centrist: What about what? As in, "Huh, Two."

Radical Centrist: We, us people, comment in Wizbang very often and I don't think any of us has ever stopped to consider what Radical Centrist has opined previously or might in the future...meaning, what I wrote here bears absolutely no reference to anything you've written, but to the thread itself...written by Kevin Aylward, about an issue that isn't entitled "Radical Centrist."

I hope that helps you settle with your "huh" issue here. If not, I don't have the faintest idea what you've asked me earlier.

S:

Duely noted. But you should really consider what I might write in the future.

S:

And the civil rights angle should, to any outside observer, be seen as so asinine, as to be a non starter for any serious inquery into the Plame investigation debacle.

That would be a gross perversion of what civil rights are all about. Sickening.

Chris and Chad:

You're right. My statement was much broader than I meant it to be. Standing alone, it is horribly wrong. Thanks for calling me on that.

However, in the context of my private thoughts when I posted it, it is completely accurate and I'll defend it to my death. Meanwhile, you'll just have to read my mind, I guess.

Sorry.

Not a problem from my point of view. I have often written something and had the meaning completely misconstrued. If you don't think civil rights violations would be applied in this case your perogative.

Latest rumor. It's a three parter.

Thursday - Fitzgerald announces there are no indictments

Friday - Miers declares her intention to ask the president to withdraw her nomination

Monday - President announces Fitzgerald as new SC nominee. Simultaneously, DU ceases to exist as all of their heads explode at once.

I think it was Bob Beckel on either Neil Cavuto or John Gibson this afternoon who said that (paraphrase) this whole thing isn't about Valerie Plame, or Joe Wilson, or Judy Miller, or Karl Rove - it's about the fact that we got into a war that we had no business getting into.

That really shows the Dem response to this.

**I agree with NONE of what Beckel said.

As far as the appropriateness of a civil rights charge, I haven't heard the argument supporting it so I can't really form an opinion. Speaking simply theoretically, I think one could argue that having the full power of the White House devoted to ruining one individual could be construed as a violation of his civil rights.

Radical centrist: I (and others) have posted at length about this. I'm tempted to just link to those posts, but let me just say in brief:

3) Victoria Toensing is a rabid Republican partisan who helped draft the law as a staffer. Her opinion is just that, a very one-sided opinion, and hardly the final answer as to whether the law applies. She has repeatedly lied on talk shows.

Also, Wilson was highly qualified, having been an Ambassador to two African countries, was Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council under Clinton, and spoke French. How many qualifications do you need? It appears his only disqualification is that he's a Democrat. He was also given special clearance for the trip by the CIA. Oh, and his wife didn't recommend him.

4) Wilson never said Cheney sent him to Africa. It wasn't "common knowledge on the cocktail circuit that Plame worked at the CIA." Find me one quote of someone who actually heard that at a cocktail party. Not someone who heard that it was common knowledge, but someone who actually claims to have heard it at a party. Isn't it a little strange that not one person has come forward to support that claim?

Now here's a couple of new ones for me:
1)"After the CIA made the referal for an investigation into the alleged leaking of a CIA agent, the administration should have required the SP to see if any statute had been violated before going foward with the investigation into the leak." So Fitzgerald should have told them what the results of his investigation would be, then it could be decided if he would conduct an investigation. I gotta admit, you're covering new ground with that one.

2)"The espionage act can't be used as the basis of the crime because it mostly releates to war time activities regarding thing like posts, stations and military equipment."

Wow, I bet the Rosenbergs are pissed that they didn't know that before they were executed for violating that law. The stuff you mentioned is only the first section of the law. It also has provisions for conspiracy.

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances sexual preference."

That is from an overview of civil rights law,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html

I am having a real hard time seeing how a rich, well-connected, white, best-selling author fits into that.

So Chris the e-mail she sent indicating that he had extensive knowledge of the area, spoke excellent french and had good relations with pronciples would be what damning with faint praise. Of course she recommended him, what Wilson has disputed is whether or not she authorized the trip. I will concede she probably didn't do that. While Wilson himslef has never charged that the VP personally sent him, he has said he was sent at the VPs instigation. To which Cheney has responded, in effect, I asked a question. I didnt get what I considered a satisfactory answer.
Regarding the cocktail party quote;

1. it's irrelevant because the IIPA requires that the covert status be known and that she actually be covert. at least one of those criteria wasn't met. It doesn't require that everyone know she worked at the CIA in order to waive the coverage.

2. From what I have read at least some of her neighbors have said that they knew she worked for the CIA. I don't know if that counts as common knowledge but it puts it in the public arena.

Radical Centrist:

I don't think anyone really knows for sure if a crime has been committed, except Fitzgerald (or he believes). There's too much BS/propaganda on both sides to truly determine if Plame was actually covert.

There certainly has been a fair assumption that she was since why in the hell would the investigation even have begun. I suppose that premise could be proven incorrect. Even still, it becomes seriously suspicious when Mcclellen denies white house involvement when clearly there was - (and quite possibly all the way to the top). Doesn't sound like truthful people to me.

So here we are for over 2 years Bush and Cheney have acted as if they had no clue about the whole thing. I just seems like we're dealing with a bunch of criminal like a law and order episode.

One has to ask why. I suppose one could answer that they were simply trying to cover up dirty politics and they got themselves in too deep. But if we're going to use the same standard as we did with Clinton (rightly so), than perjury and conspiracy are VERY big deals.

This beings said, I still believe initial laws were broken and laws in the coverup were also broken. Furthermore, since I think these people are generally lying, disgusting people, its pretty easy to believe that this has more to do with a dishonest representation of the pre-war intel. How you people can not question this same notion is beyond me considering all we know now.

When did the CIA become above suspicion to the left?

I agree that perjury and obstruction of justice are a big deal, the difference being that in the Clinton case he charged and tried (impeached), he was also found in contempt of court and I believe he pleaded guilty to perjury in a civil court. For that he was disbarred for 5 years. All those crimes related to the ex-President personally. Here you have no charges yet, no convictions yet, not even an outlay of facts yet on an investigation that on the face of it doesn't involve a crime and you want to skip the charging skip the trial and convict / punish people who haven't even been mentioned as being involved in the potential criminal transaction. Vice President Cheney's supposed crime at this point questioning Joe Wilson's credibility and sharing some knowledge with his chief of staff. President Bush's getting mad at Karl Rove.

If Rove, Libby, VP Cheney or Pres. Bush are found to have commited perjury or obstructed justice then by all means get an indictment take them to trial nad if they are found guilty punish them, but lets at least give them the same courtesy we gave President Clinton when he was accused of Sexual Harrasment (Twice), Rape and Witness Intimidation, as well as perjury and fraud.