Frogmarch?

“"That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move"

This is an attorney that you don't ever, ever, ever, want representing you. I find it highly suspicious that any lawyer would say this, even if they had a deep seated hatred of Bush.”

“Ain't selective quoting grand?

That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. ”

“Phaedrus - that adds absolutely nothing to the context, the point is there is absolutely no reason AT ALL (why I only included that part the "unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. " adds nothing to the context)that any attorney would be baffled by it.”

“You can look at the quote as him saying: "In my professional opinion, there is no reason for the president to seek outside legal council if he did not have knowlege of the leak."

I'm undecided on the issue, and am willing to let the facts come to light before making a judgement. Until this point, I had seen no evidence that the president was aware of the leak, or had tried to cover it up. That said, I don't see the point in taking this quote out of context as some sort of admission of being a poor lawyer - as you seem to be making it - rather than what it appears to mean, as I spelled out above.”

“I am baffled by Bison’s selective quoting – unless he learned from talk radio that the way to debate is through an ad hominem attack on the source, never the argument itself.”

“Please READ my previous post.

Here if this will make you happy:
I find it highly suspicious that any lawyer would say the following,
"In my professional opinion, there is no reason for the president to seek outside legal council if he did not have knowlege of the leak."

This is the same as your lawyer saying "In my professional opinion just because you might be questioned as part of an investigation of this scope is no reason for you to consult with me."

If my lawyer ever said that to me he'd be fired immediately.”

“Violin - Attacking someone's professional judgement is not Ad Hominem.”

“Bison, you didn't read the article, did you?

The point is that the president consulted outside council, rather than whitehouse council. The article goes into more detail, but there should (according to Dean's source) be no reason to consult outside council if there was no previous knowlege of the incident. Again, I'm waiting to make judgement on the president's implication in the whole thing, but the source's reasoning seems sound, and does little to impugne his professional opinion, IMO.

Also, your assertion that he gives poor council on the matter doesn't seem to make sense to me. If you're trying to say that the lawyer interviewed by Dean is just saying this to make the president look bad, you first have to disprove his stated reasons for saying it.”

“Oh, me.... it's up to my knee...”

“BTW, Tilt, I agree that if the president takes the fifth on this issue, it is tantamount to an admission of complicity.”

“Phaedrus - You would not consult the White House counsel on a criminal matter which does not involve official government policy. That point fails as well.

I'm not out to disprove the lawyers stated reasons for saying what he said to Dean, I'm saying it's highly suspicious. Why would a lawyer say would he said...

"That's Ludicrous, no lawyer said that." quote from my cousin who is, yes, a lawyer (and a Democrat to boot).”

“"I agree that if the president takes the fifth on this issue"

Now that I absolutely agree with.”

“Phaedrus - You would not consult the White House counsel on a criminal matter which does not involve official government policy. That point fails as well.


Oh! I didn't know that, and it doesn't seem to be assumed in that article either. That would definitely change things. Where did you get that information?”

“The White House counsel is the equivilant of a in house corporate attorney. He's there to consult on legal matters regarding the company (in this case the White House). He doesn't get involved with the personal matters of executives. The White House cousel for instance would advise the President on actions that needed to be taken by himself and the staff as a matter of law, for instance what documents need to be made available etc... He is not the President's personal attorney, he wouldn't for instance advise the President on his personal rights with regard to a deposition given to investigators in a criminal matter, although he would advise him about matters of Executive Privilige for instance.”

“And the really sad thing is that as a former White House Consel, Dean knows this. Which is another suspicious quality of the quote from the unnamed lawyer, why does Dean as a former White House Counsel feel the need to bolster his argument with a quote from an unnamed lawyer when his own personal legal opinion should be enough?”

“Why do you feel you have more knowledge about how these things work than a former White House counsel?


Is it up to your eye yet Tilt?”

“"As the burdens of the nation’s highest office grow,
so do the responsibilities of what is often called “the president’s lawyer” but is more accurately described as
the “presidency’s lawyer.” "

This is a quote that sums it up pretty well (From the White House 2001 Project, The White House Interview Program.)

The White House counsel represents the office, not the man.”

“Because I bothered to research the issue.”

“Seems that this is a fairly recent change to the role of white house counsel.

Bush's need to rely on a private attorney, rather than White House counsel, may have its roots in the legal troubles of former President Clinton.

Faced with possible prosecution in the Whitewater probe, Clinton turned to the White House counsel for help, thinking his consultations would be kept secret under traditional attorney-client privileges.

But two federal appeals courts ruled in 1997 and 1998 that presidential communications with White House counsel weren't privileged when they were about personal, rather than governmental, matters. The rulings changed the presidency forever.


link”

“So, the point of the unnamed lawyer remains valid: White house counsel was available, and the only reason not to use it is attorney-client privilege.”

“Not exactly Phaedrus:

"Georgetown University law professor Paul Rothstein cautioned against "overstating" the possibility of Bush's personal involvement in the leak. But he said the president's decision suggested, at least, that Bush might be anticipating a grand-jury appearance.

"My eyebrows went up when I heard about it," Rothstein said. "I think we have to read this move as some kind of feeling that there's some chance, no matter how remote, that there may be some personal liability on the president's part, or that someone might try to suggest there is."

The last part is the main point, that someone might suggest that there is personal liability is the reason why anyone in this sort of situation should hire an outside attorney to not do so shows very poor judgement.

Also look at the appeals courts reasoning for why the conversations weren't privileged, it was because it was not within the scope of the White House Counsels office to consult on any personal matters, that includes his personal rights, it's not just a question of attorney-client privilige.”

“So if White House counsel could accompany Bush and Cheney to the 9-11 hearings, what else besides attorney client priviledge would prevent Bush from using him in this case?”

“Yeah, I can see that point. His hiring a lawyer doesn't necessarily imply guilt, and the unnamed source may be a little behind the times in his reading of white house counsel's role.

I agree that it might be a little too idealistic to expect the president to allow all his attorney-client relation to be public domain, even if he isn't hiding anything.

Good discussion!”

“The 9-11 hearings looked into the actions and accountability of the administration. Their was no question of personal criminal liability as their is in the leak case. And once again I would point you to the reasoning of the appeals court ruling not the effect of the ruling, the reasoning behind the effect goes to the heart of the scope of the consel's office.”

“A federal judge has held a Time magazine reporter in contempt of court for refusing to testify in an investigation of the leak of a CIA officer's identity, rejecting requests from two media organizations to quash federal grand jury subpoenas seeking information from the media.

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that the First Amendment does not insulate reporters from Time and NBC News from a requirement to testify before a criminal grand jury that is conducting the investigation into the possible illegal disclosure of classified information. He unsealed an order that demands the "confinement" of Time reporter Matthew Cooper, who has refused to testify in the probe, but stayed it pending an appeal.
[...]
While NBC fought a subpoena issued May 21 and was included in the opinion, it avoided a contempt citation after Tim Russert, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," agreed to an interview over the weekend in which he answered a limited number of questions posed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, NBC said in a statement.

Lawyers involved in the case said it appears that Fitzgerald is now armed with a strong and unambiguous court ruling to demand the testimony of two journalists -- syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed the CIA officer's name, and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who has written that a Post reporter received information about her from a Bush administration official.

Pincus was served with a subpoena yesterday after Hogan's order was unsealed.
[...]
Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler agreed to a similar interview with Fitzgerald's office earlier this summer. In both Kessler's case and Russert's, prosecutors' questions concerned conversations the reporters had in early July 2003 with Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. Both reporters have said they told Fitzgerald's staff that Libby did not disclose the identity of the CIA employee, Valerie Plame, to them.

Fitzgerald has shown a continuing interest in Libby, witnesses have said, but it now appears that his reasons may be more complex than was first apparent. Libby has signed a waiver allowing reporters to tell the prosecutor whether he disclosed Plame's name to them. Prosecutors have e-mails and phone records showing his contacts with reporters, and witnesses have said they are interested in a story Cooper wrote last summer in which Libby was interviewed.
[...]

Full Story”

“I can just see Novak being thrown in jail for contempt.... and wouldn't it be rich if he had to thank the ACLU for springing him! LMAO”

“I think someone’s got a leaky diaper.”

“When the Marshals come to give Novak his escort, we'll see who loses bladder control, <VBG>”

“LOL!”

“They can call him Evak when he craps his panties.”

“That all DEPENDS on how full of sh_t he is! :)”

“Post Source Reveals Identity to Leak Probers

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A02

A Washington Post reporter's confidential source has revealed his or her identity to the special prosecutor conducting the CIA leak inquiry, a development that provides investigators with a fact they have been pursuing in the nearly year-long probe.

Post reporter Walter Pincus, who had been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury in the case, instead gave a deposition yesterday in which he recounted his conversation with the source, whom he has previously identified as an "administration official." Pincus said he did not name the source and agreed to be questioned only with the source's approval.

<snip>”

“Is this really the source or is someone being paid to take the fall?”

“I suppose y'all have already heard that Karl Rove got hauled before the grand jury today for two hours.


WASHINGTON - President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, testified Friday before a federal grand jury trying to determine who leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer.

Rove spent more than two hours testifying before the panel, according to an administration official who spoke only on condition of anonymity because such proceedings are secret.

Before testifying, Rove was interviewed at least once by investigators probing the leak. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell also have been interviewed, though none has appeared before the grand jury.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy referred questions to the Justice Department.

<snip>”

“Yep. Of course, he's innocent until proven froglike.


Ribbit”

“Frogger”

“[img]http://www.compeint.com/immagini articoli/signore_anielli/gollum.jpg[/img]
Ribbit!!!!”

“
RIBBIT!!!

take two”

“NEW YORK When Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times return late Wednesday afternoon to face the federal judge who ordered them to jail last fall for refusing to reveal confidential sources, two different outcomes may emerge.

While New York Times officials have maintained that Miller will not reveal the source who leaked to her the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, a source close to Time Inc. told E&P that the company is considering handing over documents that would reveal the source.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000969854”

“NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
[...]
Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.
[...]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839



”

“treason is treason, murder is murder.

here's a more interesting photo...


http://www.mykeru.com/”

“FROGMARCH!”

“July 5 (Bloomberg) -- Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper still must testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA official's name even though his employer turned over e-mails and documents, the prosecutor in the case said.

``After reviewing the documents provided by Time Inc., Cooper's testimony remains necessary'' for the investigation, said Patrick Fitzgerald in a court filing.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have been held in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources related to the leak of the Central Intelligence Agency official's name. They might be ordered to jail as early as tomorrow by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan at a hearing in Washington.

Fitzgerald also said the judge should reject requests by Cooper, 42, and Miller, 57, for home detention if they are ordered confined. Imposing jail time in a contempt case is intended to force compliance, Fitzgerald said in the court filing.

``Forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion,'' he wrote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ap8S9kdEORLc&refer=top_world_news”

“Does anyone think Fitzgerald would be (literally) making a federal case out of Cooper and Miller's testimony if he didn't think he had a very important crime to prosecute?”

“For what its worth:

Karl Rove will be indicted late this, or early next week.”

“WASHINGTON, July 6 - A federal judge today ordered Judith Miller of The New York Times to be jailed immediately after she again refused to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative.

Another reporter who had been facing jail time on the same matter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed today to testify to a grand jury about his confidential source on the same matter, thus avoiding jail. Mr. Cooper said he had decided to do so only because his source specifically released him from promises of confidentiality just before today's hearing.

continued...”

“They had better put that dude in protective custody.

I wouldn't want him to have an unfortunate accident before he gets a chance to testify.”

“Lawrence O'Donnell
The One Very Good Reason Karl Rove Might Be Indicted

Two years ago, when I first read the federal law protecting the identities of covert agents, my reaction was the same as everyone else who reads it -- this is not an easy law to break. That’s what I said on Hardball then in my first public discussion of the outing of Valerie Plame, and that’s what I said on CNN the other night. Let’s walk through the pieces that would have to fall into place for Karl Rove to have committed a crime when he revealed Plame’s identity to Matt Cooper.

First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It’s not obvious that she was. The law has a specific definition of covert agent that she might not fit -- an overseas posting in the last five years, for example. But it’s hard to believe the prosecutor didn’t begin the grand jury session with a CIA witness certifying that Plame was a covert agent. If the prosecutor couldn’t establish that, why bother moving on to the next witness?

Second, Rove had to know she was a covert agent. Cooper’s article refers to Plame as “a CIA official.” Most CIA officials are not covert agents.

Third, Rove had to know that the CIA was taking “affirmative measures” to hide her identity. Doesn’t seem like the kind of thing a political operative would or should know.

Fourth, Rove had to be “authorized” to have classified information about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn’t seem like the kind of security clearance a political operative would or should have.

I’ll be surprised if all four of those elements of the crime line up perfectly for a Rove indictment. Surprised, not shocked. There is one very good reason to think they might. It is buried in one of the handful of federal court opinions that have come down in the last year ordering Matt Cooper and Judy Miller to testify or go to jail.

In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues’ order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges “in the light of reason and experience.” Tatel actually found that reason and experience “support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources.” But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to “the gravity of the suspected crime.”

Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings.”

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.” Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”

Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.”

“Anyone have any good frogmarching music?


Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek”