Plamegate is all about the loose ends now.

[robertpaulsen]

Wow, I'm impressed with how many threads are currently focusing on Plamegate in GD. I wanted to point out what I feel are the implications of what many assumed was a "recent" development, the flipping of John Hannah. As many have said:

H2OMan Scooped the Hanna FLIP 14 MONTHS AGO, Sorry Raw Story...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5093781

H20 Man, time to take a bow!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5087428

Rawstory says it's Hannah!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5091977#5092929

Hannah/Wurmser/Bolton: Check this out from 08/04 on DU !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5091935

H2O Man brought this development to DU's attention back in August of 2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2277059


I believe what this means is that all the reports we've heard recently that Fitz is going to widen or expand his probe, that he's only recently started focusing on the VP's office is OLD NEWS. Fitz is just tying up the loose ends, i.e. PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE charges. The big ones like CONSPIRACY and ESPIONAGE were probably determined long ago.

My guess is that Hannah flipped sometime after Fitz got on the case (December 2003) and before Cheney and * were interviewed by Fitz (June 2004). If Hannah was truly "singing like a canary" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/23/16503/6468 back then, it would simply be a matter of getting the principles (* and Cheney) to turn on each other. I think that is what we're witnessing now.

So what are the loose ends? I think it's just a matter of sorting out the lies betweeen Miller, Libby and Rove to see if one, two or all three get perjury charges. This recent ABC article brings one aspect of this that I haven't seen too much discussion on into focus:

Inaccurate Info May Help CIA Leak Probe

WASHINGTON Oct 17, 2005 — Information attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff in New York Times reporter Judith Miller's interview notes is incorrect, offering prosecutors a potential lead to tracking the bad information to its original source.

Miller disclosed this weekend that her notes of a conversation she had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on July 8, 2003 stated Cheney's top aide told her that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) unit.

Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, never worked for WINPAC, an analysis unit in the overt side of the CIA, and instead worked in a position in the CIA's secret side, known as the directorate of operations, according to three people familiar with her work for the spy agency.

snip

The revelation came as President Bush weighed in Monday by declining to say what he would do if one of his aides were indicted in the investigation, and the Pentagon looked into Miller's claim that she was granted a security clearance in 2003 while reporting with a military unit during the Iraq war.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1224775

Some of this article feels like disinfo (Libby didn't know Plame was undercover? Riiight!) but it illuminates just how extensive the lying has become, they're starting to trip over each other's lies. I don't know about anyone else, but I think Rove, Libby and Miller will be indicted for perjury at a minimum.

[Kikosexy2]

1. What's a

leaky Dick to do?

[DearAbby]

3. Orange Condom like Jumpsuit?

Gawd this is so Sweeeeeeeet

[shraby]

2. They should have taken the advice about

duct tape and put it over their mouths.

[robertpaulsen]

5. As much as neo-cons brag about their knowledge of history...

they never seem to learn anything from it. What was it Nixon said on the tapes? Something like, "It's the lie that gets you".

They never learn! Sad thing is, America seems to forget every 20 years and puts the same fools back in power. Although this time, I forgive America, our country was robbed.

[hang a left]

4. What!?

but I think Rove, Libby and Miller will be indicted for perjury at a minimum.


Don't you think Libby and Rove will have multiple counts? Who do you think is going to get indicted?

[robertpaulsen]

11. At a minimum. The maximum is a wet dream.

I'm hoping for multiple indictments for all the WHIGgers down the line, which would effectively put an end to all the VP Condi Rice rumors going around. Like shraby, I'm also hopeful the indictments will extend into the OSP, though that might not occur until the next round of indictments (I do believe the ones set to occur this month are only the beginning.

Some may get single charges, but I think most will get multiple counts, especially Rove and Libby. The only way Rove and Libby could avoid the big charges is if they turn canary like Hannah. But I think it might be too late for that.

The only question in my mind is the charges against * and Cheney. Some have told me a sitting VP cannot be indicted, yet my understanding is that Spiro Agnew was a sitting VP when he was indicted for tax fraud, but by resigning before he entered a plea, he was charged as a private citizen when he plead no contest. If that's true, I don't think Cheney will be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, I think he will get indicted on a straight conspiracy charge. (That's also at a minimum, at maximum I'd give the bastard a charge of treason!)

What worries me is *. We know from Watergate that unless Fitz is willing to take on SCOTUS, the most * will get is being named as an unindicted co-conspirator for the express purpose of impeachment proceedings being initiated in Congress. The problem is getting a Rethug Congress to impeach. I don't think they will, which would enable * to nominate anyone he wants not affected by Plamegate (or Delay or Frist) to replace Cheney. And when would we find out that * was named? My understanding of Watergate is that in March 1974 when Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator, this information was not released to the public until after impeachment hearings in Congress had commenced. So with the neo-cons controlling all three branches of government, how will we ever know this time?

[hang a left]

12. Thanks for answering.

I didn't realize that impeachment hearings had commenced for Nixon. I thought he resigned first. So you think there will be more than one round of indictments? Do you think that Fitz will empanel a new grand jury?

[robertpaulsen]

15. I think multiple rounds of indictments is a distinct possibility.

It happened during Watergate. McCord was the canary that time, and that's why the indictments went way beyond the original grand jury indictments, which I believe was only Liddy, Hunt and the five burglars. That led to new grand juries, more canaries (Dean) and then the rest is history.

I think we're watching history repeat itself.

[robertpaulsen]

18. Does anyone have an answer to this question?

If * is an unnamed co-conspirator, when will we know?

Is Fitz required to name his unindicted co-conspirators as soon as he announces indictments? Are the rules different since Watergate?

[texpatriot2004]

19. Did you get any feedback or answers to these questions? n.t

[LibertyorDeath]

6. Someone pinch me

on second thought don't

Great analysis :toast:

[mmonk]

7. Yes

loose ends and the GJ is poised. It's all about seeing who all is wrapped up in the indictments and the applicable charges.

[H2O Man]

8. Nice thread!

One of the earliest messages from the Plame Threads was that people needed to be involved, doing things like reading, doing research, writing LTTE, and more. And that holds true today. We don't know for sure what is going to happen now. I will say that Fitzgerald is deciding if he should go for specific indictments against limited targets, or with what I know he wants to do, which is the broader conspiracy and includes many more people. Either way, we have our work cut out for us.

[robertpaulsen]

13. Do you foresee multiple rounds of indictments, like Watergate?

I get the feeling Fitz is trying to avoid that, he'd like to nail everyone in one broad stroke. But with the intricacies of Plamegate tying to WHIG and OSP pitching and catching, as Will Pitt put it, as well as the connection with AIPAC, maybe Fitz will play it safe now with limited targets in the hope that they will flip and lead to further rounds of indictments. Or perhaps there will be multiple rounds even if Fitz goes for the broad (unindicted as well) conspiracy charges.

Many roads to travel to get where we want to. But as George said, "Any road will take you there".

[Me.]

14. What's Your Guess On Which Way He Will Go?

Good thread RP

[mmonk]

16. I'm hoping for the broader conspiracy!

Nice work.

[Just Me]

9. I just,...I just want to witness some REAL house-cleaning!!!

I do NOT want to see any of these people or their constituents exploiting America to harm the world, ever again!

And I hope like hell that, the next time a right-wing noise machine rears up, we will LEARN to get all over it, immediately.

[damntexdem]

10. I hope it is all so.

But could WINPAC have been one of Valerie's covers? If so, could it have been disinformation distributed widely, so not leading back to definite sources?

[robertpaulsen]

17. That doesn't seem likely.

There's only one cover that Valerie had that I know of: Brewster, Jennings & Associates. The purpose of her cover was to prevent others from discovering her connection with the CIA. Choosing WINPAC as a cover would have been defeating the purpose.

Here's the likely scenarios as I see it:

Miller made up the Plame/WINPAC note to try to cover for Libby: if this is true, Miller faces charges of perjury and/or obstruction of justice for this.

Libby made up the Plame/WINPAC association to pretend he didn't know she was undercover: if this is true, Libby faces charges of perjury and/or obstruction of justice for this.

We may end up seeing multiple counts on multiple charges for Libby. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.