[moki]

Giacomo_Seingalt, do you have something to tell us?

<froth> Bush lied!!! </froth>

from: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...9/wniger19.xml

.....

Agent behind fake uranium documents worked for France
By Bruce Johnston in Rome
(Filed: 19/09/2004)

The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.

The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, "Giacomo".

His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that - by commissioning "Giacomo" to procure and circulate documents - France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

Italian judicial officials confirmed yesterday that Mr Martino had previously been sought for questioning by Rome. Investigating magistrates in the city have opened an inquiry into claims he made previously in the international press that Italy's secret services had been behind the dissemination of false documents, to bolster the US case for war.

According to Ansa, the Italian news agency, which said privately that it had obtained its information from "judicial and other sources", Mr Martino was questioned by an investigating magistrate, Franco Ionta, for two hours. Ansa said Mr Martino told the magistrate that Italy's military intelligence, Sismi, had no role in the procuring or dissemination of the Niger documents.

He was also said to have claimed that he had obtained the documents from an employee at the Niger embassy in Rome, before passing these to French intelligence, on whose payroll he had been since at least 2000.

However, he reportedly also added that he had believed that the documents in question were genuine, and to have never suspected that they had been forged. "Martino has clarified his position and offered to deliver to the magistrates the documents which confirm his declarations," his lawyer, Giuseppe Placidi, told Ansa.

It was not possible to contact Mr Martino through his lawyer yesterday. Contacted by The Telegraph, Mr Ionta politely declined to comment, but did not deny that the questioning had taken place. The Interior Ministry in Rome, which had also expressed keen interest in the Telegraph article, refused to comment on the matter.

Mr Martino is said by diplomats to have come forward of his own accord and contacted authorities in the Italian capital following the earlier article in the Telegraph. They said he had written a letter of resignation to the French DGSE intelligence service last week.

According to an Italian newspaper report yesterday, members of the Digos, Italy's anti-terrorist police, removed documents from Mr Martino's home in a northern suburb of Rome on Friday afternoon.

"After being exposed in the international press, French intelligence can hardly be amused or happy with him," one western diplomat said. "Martino may have thought the safest thing was to hand himself over to the Italians." Investigators in Rome suspect that Mr Martino was first engaged by the French secret services five years ago, when he was asked to investigate rumours of illicit trafficking in uranium from Niger. He is thought to have then been retained the following year to collect more information. It was then that he is suspected of having assembled a dossier containing both real and bogus documents from Niger, the latter apparently forged by a diplomat.

In September 2002 Tony Blair accused Saddam of seeking "significant quantities" of uranium from an undisclosed African country - in fact, Niger. US President George W Bush made a similar claim in his State of the Union address to Congress four months later, using information supplied by MI6.

The International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts over some of the documents' authenticity, however, and declared them false in March 2003.

In July, the White House withdrew the president's claim, admitting that it was based on inaccurate information. British officials still say that their intelligence about Iraqi uranium purchases was supported by a second, independent source.

[goMac]

I heard months ago that the original source of the documents was Iran, who wanted to open up a power void in Iraq.

[BRussell]

Haha, the White House did everything they possibly could to generate bogus evidence of WMDs in order to go to war, a war that most of the world, including France, did not want, and moki blames it on... France! They made us do it!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, the White House did everything they possibly could to generate bogus evidence of WMDs in order to go to war, a war that most of the world, including France, did not want, and moki blames it on... France! They made us do it!

Well, if it wasn't France, he'd have to make due his promise and call to impeach the president, or look like a flip-flopping idiot...oh wait.

(yes, ad-hominem, but not undeserved)

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, the White House did everything they possibly could to generate bogus evidence of WMDs in order to go to war, a war that most of the world, including France, did not want, and moki blames it on... France! They made us do it!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, the White House did everything they possibly could to generate bogus evidence of WMDs in order to go to war, a war that most of the world, including France, did not want, and moki blames it on... France! They made us do it!

Your jaundiced appreciation of this fact is well noted. No matter what, it is still France's fault.

What I find interesting is the following.
"Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent."
Now, if this interpretation of events is true then it would seem the French were setting us up for a fall to try and shame us into preventing the war from happening. Except, we in the US latch on to this information as incontrovertible proof of Saddam's bad intentions, and act on it even after it had been proven false. But why wasn't the deception made more prominent when it was finally revealed. If France really wanted to shame us into not going to war they could have been more forthcoming in providing evidence supporting the deception.

The whole thing doesn't really surprise me, though. It stinks of inter-national brinkmanship. This just further reinforces that saying "There are no friends, just temporary allies" (a bad paraphrase, I know).

[Weyland-Yutani]

Nice rule 8 violation there

cheers

W-Y

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Nice rule 8 violation there

cheers

W-Y

Oh no!

He is just being sarcastic...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Nice rule 8 violation there

cheers

W-Y

You seem to have become the forum policeman. hmmmm.

[BRussell]

According to this, these revelations coming from Italy also say that the White House went directly to these kinds of sources in order to get around the CIA, who didn't believe in Iraqi WMDs quite strongly enough for their liking. Later, of course, the CIA was blamed for it. These also link directly into this Wilson-Plame scandal that looks to be resulting in indictments this week.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG

You seem to have become the forum policeman. hmmmm.

According to NYCfarmboy, forum policing of rule #8 violations is MY job.
(Although if he didn't post and run all the time I wouldn't have to bust him for it so often.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

According to this, these revelations coming from Italy also say that the White House went directly to these kinds of sources in order to get around the CIA, who didn't believe in Iraqi WMDs quite strongly enough for their liking. Later, of course, the CIA was blamed for it. These also link directly into this Wilson-Plame scandal that looks to be resulting in indictments this week.

According to your linked article, the White House confirmed a secret meeting between then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and the head of the Italian intelligence service before the story of the "yellowcake" came to light. A story, as it turns out, brought to life by the Italian intelligence service, possibly in cooperation with the French intelligence service. (Although it would seem the Italians and French were both involved in the deception for different reasons.)

While all this information "proves" nothing it raises a lot of questions as to why and how the "yellowcake" issue became so prominent so quickly. For me, the most important un-answered question is why does the head of the Italian intelligence service hold a secret meeting with a high-ranking White House national security official without the participation of anyone from our own intelligence service, the CIA? That just smells fishy to me and suggests a circumvention of normal inter-national intelligence-sharing operations.

[Face Ache]

Funniest thread of the week.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

While all this information "proves" nothing it raises a lot of questions as to why and how the "yellowcake" issue became so prominent so quickly. For me, the most important un-answered question is why does the head of the Italian intelligence service hold a secret meeting with a high-ranking White House national security official without the participation of anyone from our own intelligence service, the CIA? That just smells fishy to me and suggests a circumvention of normal inter-national intelligence-sharing operations.

You are correct in the appearance, but remember that the CIA has decades of roadblocks and bureaucratic barriers to information in place, and the White House staff knows that. This looks very much like a case of high-level social engineering. If true, it's not only sad, it's criminal on the part of the "engineers."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

You are correct in the appearance, but remember that the CIA has decades of roadblocks and bureaucratic barriers to information in place, and the White House staff knows that. This looks very much like a case of high-level social engineering. If true, it's not only sad, it's criminal on the part of the "engineers."

high-level social engineering

I don't have a clue what this means in the context of international intelligence sharing . . . or the lack thereof. Please explain.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by KarlG

You seem to have become the forum policeman. hmmmm.

There is no need to break rule 8 unless one is sloppy, lazy, flamebaiting or a troll. Rule 8 is there for a reason. Please don't take this personally.

cheers

W-Y

[Wiskedjak]

So, if I understand correctly what moki is saying, France suckered the US?

[Rolling Bones]

At least he didn't find something to blame on Canada this time.

I'm telling you, France and Canada are in cahoots and are going to hoodwink the USA and take over the world.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

According to your linked article, the White House confirmed a secret meeting between then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and the head of the Italian intelligence service before the story of the "yellowcake" came to light. A story, as it turns out, brought to life by the Italian intelligence service, possibly in cooperation with the French intelligence service. (Although it would seem the Italians and French were both involved in the deception for different reasons.)

While all this information "proves" nothing it raises a lot of questions as to why and how the "yellowcake" issue became so prominent so quickly. For me, the most important un-answered question is why does the head of the Italian intelligence service hold a secret meeting with a high-ranking White House national security official without the participation of anyone from our own intelligence service, the CIA? That just smells fishy to me and suggests a circumvention of normal inter-national intelligence-sharing operations.

God Damn this is going to make a good movie. I hope they cast Clooney as the lead but I fear they'll end up going with Tom Cruise.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by moki

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

It doesn't matter whether it was France, Italy, the Iranians, the Israelis or those damn Canadiens. We dispatched someone to investigate the claim, he came back and said it was bogus and then our government basically chose to ignore the results of that investigation.

So no one 'duped' us into going to war, we went happily and ignorantly. And IIRC the 'yellowcake' claim was just one bit of 'supportive' evidence that the administration put forth for their WMD justification, had it not existed we would have still invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMDs.

And now, the yellowcake shakedown could lead to the downfall of some very powerful men in Washington, perhaps even the VP.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

At least he didn't find something to blame on Canada this time.

I'm telling you, France and Canada are in cahoots and are going to hoodwink the USA and take over the world.

Ofcourse we Canadians are behind this... first we conquer the entertainment industry...then the WORLD!!!

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

Giacomo_Seingalt, do you have something to tell us?

<froth> Bush lied!!! </froth>

from: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...9/wniger19.xml

.....

Agent behind fake uranium documents worked for France
By Bruce Johnston in Rome
(Filed: 19/09/2004)

(...)
However, he reportedly also added that he had believed that the documents in question were genuine, and to have never suspected that they had been forged.
(...)
US President George W Bush made a similar claim in his State of the Union address to Congress four months later, using information supplied by MI6.

The International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts over some of the documents' authenticity, however, and declared them false in March 2003.

In July, the White House withdrew the president's claim, admitting that it was based on inaccurate information. British officials still say that their intelligence about Iraqi uranium purchases was supported by a second, independent source.

(laughter)

Santa exists: I saw a text about him!

(more laughter)

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

high-level social engineering

I don't have a clue what this means in the context of international intelligence sharing . . . or the lack thereof. Please explain.

social engineering is the practice of obtaining confidential information by manipulation of legitimate users. A social engineer will commonly use the telephone or Internet to trick people into revealing sensitive information or getting them to do something that is against typical policies.

There's a political science definition, but it's really a different animal. The computer security definition is what I meant-messing with people for nefarious purposes. In this case, it looks like the French (and/or Italian) inteligence people "socially engineered" the White House staffers into thinking they were "cutting out the middle man" - as in the CIA. Slick. But bad, VERY bad.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There's a political science definition, but it's really a different animal. The computer security definition is what I meant-messing with people for nefarious purposes. In this case, it looks like the French (and/or Italian) inteligence people "socially engineered" the White House staffers into thinking they were "cutting out the middle man" - as in the CIA. Slick. But bad, VERY bad.

You must be right: Americans are so gullible!


Come on.

The CIA not verifying info? Never at all?

And Bush's gang who took over would never do the same, yet go loud and publicly about it without any verifications?

And now, let's blame the French for their failures?

Man! Is there any one accountable in the US today?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There's a political science definition, but it's really a different animal. The computer security definition is what I meant-messing with people for nefarious purposes. In this case, it looks like the French (and/or Italian) inteligence people "socially engineered" the White House staffers into thinking they were "cutting out the middle man" - as in the CIA. Slick. But bad, VERY bad.

Gotcha!

Yeah, it looks like the Italian and/or French intelligence services were circumventing the usual channels for inter-national intelligence sharing by going straight to the White House. Alhtough, according to BRussell's linked article, it looks like the acted for different reasons--The Italians to curry favor with the US and the French to sabotage our plans for war.

With all the intrigue in this situation it [I]would/I] make a great movie.

[olePigeon]

I'd say Tom Clancey could write it, but he practically already did that with Clear and Present Danger. A sequal maybe?!

[SimeyTheLimey]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/217wnmrb.asp This article is a couple of pages long, but explains exactly how the chronology you have all been assuming is wrong.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/217wnmrb.asp This article is a couple of pages long, but explains exactly how the chronology you have all been assuming is wrong.

Anyone unsure of where exactly the 'Weekly Standard' stands on such issues may find the leaders from their weblog interesting!

'The New York Times: All the Negative News That's Fit to Print on VP Cheney'
'Joe Wilson's "Vanity Fair" Hell'
'Attention Senators Reid and Kennedy: "It is not about partisan politics or the war in Iraq," Senator Joe Lieberman on today's Indictment'
'Saddam Hussein "Gave Preferential Treatment" to France'
'More Distortion on Iraq & Niger'
'Will Liberal Democrats Seek to Cut-Off Funding for US Troops Engaged in Combat Operations in Iraq?'
'Are the French Coming to Assad's Rescue?'

To cut a long story short, it reads like a Bush-apologist's wet dream.

NEXT!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

Anyone unsure of where exactly the 'Weekly Standard' stands on such issues may find the leaders from their weblog interesting!

'The New York Times: All the Negative News That's Fit to Print on VP Cheney'
'Joe Wilson's "Vanity Fair" Hell'
'Attention Senators Reid and Kennedy: "It is not about partisan politics or the war in Iraq," Senator Joe Lieberman on today's Indictment'
'Saddam Hussein "Gave Preferential Treatment" to France'
'More Distortion on Iraq & Niger'
'Will Liberal Democrats Seek to Cut-Off Funding for US Troops Engaged in Combat Operations in Iraq?'
'Are the French Coming to Assad's Rescue?'

To cut a long story short, it reads like a Bush-apologist's wet dream.

NEXT!

It's a conservative magazine, no doubt about it. That doesn't make the chronology incorrect -- unless you think that only liberal newspapers have calendars.

Wilson went to Niger in February 2002. The forged documents didn't fall into US hands until October, 2002. Wilson therefore could not have disproved the documents as he claimed. That is just one of the facts that have been misrepresented in the liberal media. The article I pointed to is the most comprehensive debunking of the way liberals in the media have spun the Wilson story. It exposes the information they would prefer you didn't know.

It's sad that liberal newspapers like the New York Times have taken to misrepresenting and hiding facts to make their cases. That's why you have to turn to an overtly conservative source to redress the balance. But if you would prefer to live in your little New York Times/London Guardian/BBC bubble, that is up to you.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It's sad that liberal newspapers like the New York Times have taken to misrepresenting and hiding facts to make their cases. That's why you have to turn to an overtly conservative source to redress the balance.

But if you would prefer to live in your little New York Times/London Guardian/BBC bubble, that is up to you.

Not at all. I'm happy to leave investigations of the chronology and paper trails to the special prosecutor. He seems to be doing a pretty good job so far.

BTW, I seem to remember that initially your view on Wilson et al was that there was simply no case to answer. As it seems that possibility is fading rather rapidly, you might be best sticking to conservative blogs for the next few months. If only for comfort's sake.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

Not at all. I'm happy to leave investigations of the chronology and paper trails to the special prosecutor. He seems to be doing a pretty good job so far.

BTW, I seem to remember that initially your view on Wilson et al was that there was simply no case to answer. As it seems that possibility is fading rather rapidly, you might be best sticking to conservative blogs for the next few months. If only for comfort's sake.

My reading of the statute that was at the center of the investigation was correct. The central issue was the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopoli...rotection.html No indictment was brought under that act, as I predicted. Secondly, no indictment was brought against Rove, as I predicted.

An indictment has been brought against Libby, a person I hadn't even heard of until this investigation. But it is an indictment that arose out of the investigation itself. It has nothing directly to do with the wild crimes that Wilson accused Rove of committing. The prosecutor hasn't accused Rove of anything at all. This indictment against Libby also has nothing to do with any putative outing of Wilson's wife. No charge has been levelled relating to that matter at all against anyone. Not even under the statute that people later suggested -- the very broad World War I era Espionage Act. Whether Libby committed the unrelated crimes obstruction of justice and perjury before the Grand Jury that he has been accused of remains to be seen, but even if he did, that has nothing to do with the accusations that were made about outing secret agents and the like.

Most importantly, the narrative that was told about what Rove and others in the White House were allegedly doing with respect to Joe and Valerie Wilson has completely collapsed. There was no big dark conspiracy to out and endanger a CIA agent. It simply did not happen the way they and their friends on the left of the media told it. And Wilson's credibility has been shattered by the fact that he has repeatedly been exposed as a liar. Most importantly, by the US Senate.

This has worked out pretty much as I predicted but you would not understand why if you rely solely on liberals to tell the story. I am glad to have been correct once again.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I am glad to have been correct once again.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But if as seems likely to me he ends up with no indictments, it's going to be awfully hard for even the Washington press corps to keep this one alive.

One example of many. I'll spare your blushes and my short time on this earth by not digging up the rest.

[Pendergast]

The text of the indictment.
Press release (.pdf) regarding that Libby thing.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[SimeyTheLimey]

nath: reread this:

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's simple. This is a politicized case where some wild accusations were made. Then Attorney General Ashcroft would normally have had the ultimate authority to decide whether a prosecution was warranted or not. But because it was so high-profile and politicized he decided to recuse himself and the Justice Department and appoint an independent prosecutor (Fitzgerald).

It's looking very much like Fitzgerald will ultimately conclude that the law was not broken. The statute has a number of requirements, all of which have to be met. She had to actually be under cover, whoever leaked had to know she was under cover, had to get that information from classified information obtained from government employment, and had to act with malice toward the employee. So far it doesn't appear that any of these requirements are met, but if even one of them doesn't apply, then there is no violation of the statute that this all revolves around. Of course, there could be other violations (e.g. lying under oath, obstruction of a grand jury investigation), and that could be why the investigation is still under way.

Just because there is an investigation does not mean that the investigation in hindsight was warranted. In fact, historically most independent counsel investigations have turned into wild goose chases that uncover little if anything that they were originally set up to uncover. The classic example is the Starr investigations. Pretty much all the accusations that Starr started following ended up as dead ends. He got a couple of convictions for minor fraud (Webster Hubble) and so forth, but nothing like what people assumed the evidence would lead to. Clinton was finally only caught perjuring himself in the investigation itself. It was a colossal waste of time and money. But that is in hindsight, you don't know that at the time when you begin.

The same probably goes here. At the time the investigation was started it looked like there might be something there. It now looks very much like there is not. Only unfortunately, it is still politicized, which is the only reason we are still talking about this.

I posted it on July 15, 2005. Things panned out pretty much as I predicted. When I referred to the "law" and the "statute" in that post, I was talking about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. There have been no indictments under that statute, ergo, as I predicted, the prosecutor found no violation.

In fact, there have been no indictments at all on the issue that the special prosecutor was created to investigate. Again, that is how I predicted.

As you can see, however, I also predicted that there could be peripheral indictments for obstruction of justice or perjury. That is all that has happened, and I said all along that was possible. The example I gave was the Starr investigation where Starr couldn't get an indictment for the matter he was asked to investigate, so instead got a couple for perjury. Here, there has been one indictment, and just like the Starr investigation, it is a crime that arose out of the investigation, not out of what the investigation was set up to investigate. If any conviction follows, it will still have nothing to do with the underlying issue. And of course, it's not Rove.

My July post exactly tracks what happened. I am not clairvoyant, but it turns out I was right. That's simply because I have a fair idea how the law in this area works.

[nath]

Simey: reread this:

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But if as seems likely to me he ends up with no indictments

Pretty clear, but I've bolded to relevant bit to make it even more so.

[SimeyTheLimey]

dp again

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

Simey: reread this:



Pretty clear, but I've bolded to relevant bit to make it even more so.

No, you have cherry picked a sentence out of context because you can't make your point stand if you allow my words to stand in context.

What is hard for you to admit is that I also said:

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Of course, there could be other violations (e.g. lying under oath, obstruction of a grand jury investigation), and that could be why the investigation is still under way.

You have said before that you find it very hard to admit when you are wrong. Why do you keep putting yourself in that position?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But it is an indictment that arose out of the investigation itself. It has nothing directly to do with the wild crimes that Wilson accused Rove of committing. The prosecutor hasn't accused Rove of anything at all. This indictment against Libby also has nothing to do with any putative outing of Wilson's wife. No charge has been levelled relating to that matter at all against anyone.

That's not accurate. The perjury and other charges are directly about who told whom about Valerie Wilson. Libby lied about who he told and who told him about her. That's exactly the issue that was under investigation.

If, for example, the prosecutor expanded his investigation into an affair Libby had been having, and he lied and said he had not, that would be nothing to do with the original charges.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

No, you have cherry picked a sentence out of context because you can't make your point stand if you allow my words to stand in context.

There's no need to cherry-pick, as I mentioned previously. You were fundamentally wrong in the most basic elements of your predictions regarding the development of this investigation - I believe the phrase 'storm in a teacup' was used more than once.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You have said before that you find it very hard to admit when you are wrong.

Simey, you seriously need to take some self-awareness classes.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This indictment against Libby also has nothing to do with any putative outing of Wilson's wife.

Jesus. If that's the level of delusion you've attained then...whatever. Good luck to ya.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

No, you have cherry picked a sentence out of context because you can't make your point stand if you allow my words to stand in context.

What is hard for you to admit is that I also said:

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Of course, there could be other violations (e.g. lying under oath, obstruction of a grand jury investigation), and that could be why the investigation is still under way.

By the way, you did not make the above comment in the post I quoted, therefore I did not 'cherry-pick a sentence out of context'. Your whole post is below, and I have highlighted the part I quoted.

The whole basis of your post is that this is a summertime scandal that will soon go away, and that you don't think there won't be any indictments anway, blah blah blah. There is no qualification about 'unrelated' (ha!) charges.

This is the second time you've been caught telling blatant porkies this evening Simey - are you drunk?

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Obviously, a special prosecutor (like any prosecutor) has to have probable cause to issue an indictment. But an indictment hasn't been issued. Probable cause isn't that high a standard. It's much less, for example, than a civil trial standard, which is preponderance of the evidence. But it is more than the reasonable suspicion standard a cop needs to pull you over in the street to stop and frisk you.

In an investigation, in order to get to the point when an indictment is issued, the prosecutor needs the information that leads to probable cause. The standard for that is less even than probable cause since a collection of evidence can be added together to build probable cause. So you aren't talking a very high threshold of likeliness of a crime to support a subpoena in a grand jury investigation. So put it all together to see how far from a conviction we could really be and still see subpoenas issued.

Something that meets that low threshold could support a subpoena. Information gathered from the subpoena and other sources could together add up to the low level of common sense likelihood of a crime that constitutes probable cause. Probable cause can support an indictment, but for an indictment to support a conviction, the jury or judge has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very high threshold, a world away from that needed for a mere evidentiary subpoena.

What the Times was trying to do was reverse the entire process and hold a mini trial -- judging the need for a subpoena based on what could happen if a trial were held today. That puts the cart before the horse in an extraordinary way. The point of the subpoena is simply to gather the information that might lead to probable cause. The subpoena could just as easily cause the prosecutor to conclude that there is no probable cause -- in which case, the prosecutor is ethically and legally bound not to prosecute. But it is not for the subpoenaed party to make that decision, and whether or not there is ultimately a prosecution has nothing to do with whether the subpoena itself is proper and must be obeyed. You have to obey it no matter what. Not to do so is contempt, which is why Judy Miller is in jail.

Mojo2: Washington feeding scandals generate a life of thier own once the feeding frenzy gets going. Remember Gary Condit? That was another summertime scandal. This one involves the White House and spies and the Democrat's (and the media's -- same thing) favorite obsession -- Karl Rove. All it lacks for the perfect summertime political scandal is sex. Sure, the frenzy is still going, but that doesn't mean there is any substance. It all depends on what happens when Fitzgerald finishes. He hasn't indicated how long that will be, but Miller's obstruction obviously doesn't help. But if as seems likely to me he ends up with no indictments, it's going to be awfully hard for even the Washington press corps to keep this one alive. Already, they are trying to shift things to what happens if there is no crime and trying to build a scandal over nothing but partisan outrage at politics as both sides play it (which most people instinctively understand). That's going to be a tough sell. Particularly when you have a president who at the best of times (i.e. when he still faced reelection) doesn't give a rats ass what the media thinks, and a media which has much less ability to manufacture a story than they had even five years ago.

[SimeyTheLimey]

nath, you are pretty funny to watch when you get desparate.

What I said back in July is on the record. No amount of selective bolding in cherry picked posts changes the fact I clearly predicted the possibility of a collateral indictment for perjury and the like. That's what I said, it's there for everyone to read if anyone cares to go back and reread the old threads. I also said I thought an indictment under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was highly unlikely, and it turns out I was right. That's 2-0 in my favor. You simply made a false statement about what I said, and I have set the record straight. Deal with it like an adult for once.

This has indeed been a storm in a teacup. Nobody would have launched a two year special prosecutor investigation had they known at the time that the prosecutor would find nothing to charge anyone with but a mistatement made in the course of the subsequent investigation itself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

dp again.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

No amount of selective bolding in cherry picked posts

Oh, so now it's a cherry-picked post rather than a cherry-picked quote? Nice switch, I'm sure nobody noticed!

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You simply made a false statement about what I said, and I have set the record straight.

Now you're just being childish. I quoted you. You are trying to wriggle.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

nath, you are pretty funny to watch when you get desparate.
...
Deal with it like an adult for once.

And you always go on the attack when your hand is weak. In poker they call it a tell.

[Spliffdaddy]

nath got smacked down. heh.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

nath got smacked down. heh.

And he is still trying to argue that I didn't say what I said because he found one post he could take out of context!

As they would say in England, what a plonker!

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

And he is still trying to argue that I didn't say what I said

Oh dear, more lies. Time to put up or shut up, Simey. Please point out where I have argued that you didn't say something or other.

You can't. Because my quotation of you was based on what you did say in one post (although of course there are many others). To which you then said 'Oh, but in other posts I got it right'. Big deal. In the one I quoted, you got it hilariously wrong.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

As they would say in England, what a plonker!

Simey, I've said before that I don't feel comfortable with you vicariously reliving your brutalised English childhood through me. Remember, it wasn't me that mashed you into the playground floor. Time to move on.

Let's face it, if you find yourself rely on types like Spliff 'let's make the Middle East a glass crater' Daddy for moral support, something's gone very wrong somewhere.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

You can't. Because my quotation of you was based on what you did say in one post (although of course there are many others). To which you then said 'Oh, but in other posts I got it right'. Big deal. In the one I quoted, you got it hilariously wrong.

I'm sorry, I will make sure in future to make each and every post into a fully comprehensive exposition of my complete opinion of a subject, complete with all sub-variables, caveats, minor side issues, and remote possibilities. After all, my opinion in each post is totally separate from the statements I make in neighboring posts, such that you can pick one out of context and claim that it fully represents what I said on a matter.

[Spliffdaddy]

it's Ok to be wrong. Heck, I was wrong once (Obama joins Republican party).

But to be obviously wrong time and time again - and never admit it - is shameful.

Grow some ballz, nath. It's well past time.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I'm sorry, I will make sure in future to make each and every post into a fully comprehensive exposition of my complete opinion of a subject, complete with all sub-variables, caveats, minor side issues, and remote possibilities. After all, my opinion in each post is totally separate from the statements I make in neighboring posts, such that you can pick one out of context and claim that it fully represents what I said on a matter.

That's fine. You've apologised and explained yourself, now let's move on. The post above is a much more sensible explanation than:

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You simply made a false statement about what I said

...which was just a plain lie.