Say Anything Blog

His only crime appears to be talking to the grand jury…

::sigh::

Two years of investigation and we’ve concluded that there was no crime after all, apparently…

What coverup?  There was no crime committed, so why cover it up?

That’s why cover-ups are stupid...you pretty much always get nailed. I think that we’ll see another grand jury or an extention of the current one so anyone not indicted now but who was involved probably won’t be off the hook yet.

What coverup? There was no crime committed, so why cover it up?

Why lie to investigators or the grand jury or intentionally mislead if there’s nothing to hide? Understand I’m just speculating since we don’t have confirmed facts as yet. If there was no crime to cover up then someone must have felt that certain actions were unethical or politically undesirable if publicised. Assuming there was a cover-up of course.

Oh, I understand it is all still speculation.  Hopefully facts will be out soon.

I think you and I are thinking about this a bit differently.  I assume that by being charged with lying to the grand jury, what they really mean is that the told them two different things at two different times and I assume that it was an honest mistake that was exposed.  If he was caught lying about a cover up, he would be charged with lying about the cover up as well as whatever it was he was covering up, presumably.  Since he was only charged with the former, it only makes sense in my mind that it was more innocent that indictments make it sound…

Ug, we’ll know soon enough.

Another possibility:  The heavily biased MSM has made the Reps gunshy, and they were protecting themselves from possible smear over what would turn out to be nothing.  Some crime.

’if Libby (or whoever) is indicted tomorrow it does not mean they’re guilty.

We’ll still have a lengthy trial to look forward to.’

Unlikely, probably a resignation and plea deal.

The message here for anyone reading this is: If approached by the government, you have a right to remain silent. Exercise it even if you are totally innocent. If you cooperate you might be indicted for attempting to cooperate.

The message I get is that you should tell the truth or you might be indicted for perjury or obstruction.

Wasn’t Clinton impeached because of “ no crime having been committed until there was an investigation.”?

Was it a crime then and not a crime now?

Wasn’t Clinton impeached because of ” no crime having been committed until there was an investigation.”?

I’ll take this one. The cases are very different because Clinton is a Marxist. Clinton has also created a pandemic of oral sex devotees among America’s youth so he deserved impeachment. Plame deserved to be outed because Wilson is a traitor so his wife is clearly an act of heroism.

Next?

If all of this speculation turns out to be true, it may have an undesirable result. When people who have not committed a crime end up being charged for what they do when cooperating with law enforcement investigating someone else’s possible crime anyone with any sense will decline to cooperate.

Much of law enforcement’s effectiveness depends on the cooperation of witnesses. The message here for anyone reading this is: If approached by the government, you have a right to remain silent. Exercise it even if you are totally innocent. If you cooperate you might be indicted for attempting to cooperate.

We have seen the same result with doctors witnessing accidents. If you drive on, you won’t be sued. If you stop and try to help, you risk being sued for your kindness.

so outing his wife is clearly an act of heroism.

[...] Some reminders from Rob Port.  TrackBack <4> Powered by Movable Type 2.661   ·   Design by Sekimori   ·   Maintenance by Mark Jaquith © 2004-05 - Michelle Malkin - all rights reserved var site="s10michellemalkin" [...]

I agree. Instead of “tell the truth”, we get “remain silent”. Interesting.

Yeah, I agree with Rob.  Perjury is so 1997.  Is it even a crime anymore as long as you’re not a Democratic president?

Ugh, Mark Levin, how could any one use the phrase “move on” in this context with a straight face.

[...] As I said last night, there apparently wasn’t a crime until there was an investigation. [...]

so outing his wife is clearly an act of heroism.

How do we know she was actually ‘outed’ by somebody else? If that’s the case, then we should expect an indictment for the crime of intentionally outing her today.

Hey this Post is linked to Michelle Malkin’s Blog!!!

Clinton gave false testimony in the blue dress case.  He also prepared a false affadavit for Monica.  He did these things to protect himself from sexual harassment charges. 
Valerie Plame was not covert; therefore, she couldn’t be “outed”.

Wasn’t Clinton impeached because of ” no crime having been committed until there was an investigation.”?

Big difference.  Clinton lied about a civil case of sexual harassment.  After it came out that he lied he settled the case for over a million dollars. 

So more or less he admitted to the crime of sexual harassment and settled with the victim. 

He then had to face the music for his criminal act of perjury.

Hey this Post is linked to Michelle Malkin’s Blog!!!

No wonder my skin is crawling...I just thought it was pre-Halloween jitters.

Clinton gave false testimony in the blue dress case. He also prepared a false affadavit for Monica. He did these things to protect himself from sexual harassment charges.

Any evidence to support this claim r108?

Valerie Plame was not covert; therefore, she couldn’t be “outed”.

Her status was classified information until Novak revealed it in his column.

Forgot the link, sorry.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/

Mike:  Here’s a link with all the details.  Compare his actions to those of Scooter Libby’s(according to Fitzgerald).

The real crime here is that she used her status(?) at the CIA to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election.

By suggesting her husband investigate the Niger uranium claim I presume. More shoes to drop I suspect before we find out more of the story. Thanks for the reference to the court record...I’ll have a look around.

The Clinton stuff is a matter of court record.  You can look it up.
As I said, Valerie Plame was not covert.
The real crime here is that she used her status(?) at the CIA to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election.

FYI, Clinton’s lose of his law licence had nothing to do with sexual harrasment, it was because he was found in contempt of court and purjured himself.  So you can’t use it as an argument that he was guilty of anything to do with Flowers, Lewinsky, et al..

Compare this to what Scooter is being indicted for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton-Lewinsky_scandal

Any evidence to support this claim r108?

I suppose he wouldn’t have settled his civil case with Paula Jones for over a million dollars if he wasn’t guilty.

I suppose he didn’t lose his law license because he wasn’t guilty.  I think he also got a fine.

Sphag: You are right.  I was going from memory and combined the two things.  That doesn’t change my original premise, though. It illustrates Clinton’s consistent behavior of lying as his main way of dealing with things, despite national interest or the vows of his office. I will always despise him for that.  He has disgraced my country.

Mike:  I think Valerie Wilson outed herself by cooperating in an attempt to discredit the President in an attempt to influence the 2004 election.  In my mind, her crime is much more serious.  The CIA has no business doing that, by statute.  If anything, Scooter was trying to protect the President from false charges, and I admire him for that.

Thanks r108...not a very proud moment for Clinton or politics in general. It’s probably too early to compare Clinton’s case with current events...we don’t know if Libby faces additional charges or whether anyone else does for that matter. Still, one can say that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction in a futile attempt to keep his philandering out of the public arena. Pretty cheesy and weak willed on his part and a perfect example of how admitting responsibility and testifying truthfully from the start eliminates a lot of grief and distraction.

Why would Libby perjure himself and obstruct justice in an attempt to avoid responsibility for revealing the identity and employment status of Valerie Wilson? The common explanation is that Libby was involved in an Administration pushback against Joe Wilson and his public criticism of the Administration’s justification for the invasion of Iraq. This pushback is to be expected as a normal act of politics but Libby’s attempt to mask his role in leaking Wilson’s status is obviously out of the bounds of normal politics and probably legality for that matter.

Clinton’s motivation is fairly clear cut...he lied to protect his personal image and reputation. The obvious motivation for Libby to lie would be to cover up an illegal and/or unethical act although the obvious answer isn’t always the right one. Clinton lied because he couldn’t keep his dick in his pants while Libby may have lied because he outed a CIA agent. The latter seems more serious to me but everyone has his/her own opinion...and Libby’s guilt is obviously yet to be proven.

I think Valerie Wilson outed herself by cooperating in an attempt to discredit the President in an attempt to influence the 2004 election.

It’s a cool theory but not one supported by any facts that I have seen. I wonder if Scooter will plead out to avoid the embarrassment of Cheney testifying in open court.

BTW: The CIA displayed arrogant recklessness and a sense of invincibility in trying to engineer a hit on a sitting President to cover their intel mistakes.

She did it.  Who else recommended him to the CIA for the trip?  I know it seems unlikely(sarcasm) but she admitted it. The real outrage is that she found nothing wrong with her actions.

She used her job at the CIA to further his agenda to smear the President!!! Do you think that is OK?

If she did such a thing that would not be OK but I haven’t seen any evidence to support that it happened. It’s a neat talking point but it’s hollow in the end.

Some are facts...some are opinions...some are fictions. FWIW I think that the WH was justified in rebutting Wilson’s claims but clearly the method used was reckless at best. It really points to the hubris and sense of invincibility of the current Administration. Why the annoyance with Wilson justifies outing an agent of the CIA is beyond my comprehension.

She used her job at the CIA to further his agenda to smear the President!!! Do you think that is OK?

All the facts I stated are facts.  You can look them up. If you disagree, let’s hear your facts.

Fact: Valerie Wilson works for the CIA.
Fact:  Her husband, Joe Wilson, was a Dem activist for Kerry in 2003.
Fact: Joe claimed that the President lied when he said that British Intel told him that Saddam had sought uranium ore from Africa.
Fact:  Mrs Wilson, in her capacity as a CIA operative, recommended that her husband, a known Dem activist, be sent to Niger to question the President’s statement.
Fact: Joe Wilson implied that he had been sent by the VP, which was a lie.
Fact: Joe Wilson reported that the President was wrong in saying that Saddam had bought uranium ore from Niger, which the Pres didn’t say!
Fact: Joe Wilson is a media star for the anti-war movement as a result of this CIA-supported and recommended trip.

Well, Mike, you are half right, as far as can be determined at this time.  It seems likely that she was the one who recommended him, (who else?) but we do know that the CIA sponsored his trip, which is worrisome enough.  According to what it says in this WaPo article, the CIA will never reveal what she has to say.  I might mention that someone with a high security clearance can read what she wrote, though, so that might explain a few things.  Maybe she should sue.  Ha Ha

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801172_2.html

Fact
Valerie Plame Wilson manipulated
the Whitehouse into the fix they are now in. She is the greatest intelligence asset ever.
Make her head of Homeland Security.

How’s the ozone up there?