Gnome de Plume @ 11

I have a sort of OT question – when push comes to shove and the White House still refuses to turn over documents, witnesses, whatever; even after the SCOTUS has ruled against them and said they must comply with the law or subpoena – what happens then? Since Junior and his friends have NEVER, EVER complied or followed the law, I am not expecting them to ever change. Does the FBI get to knock down the doors? Can people be led away in handcuffs? I am trying to envision a scenario, because I do think it is coming. Like Egregious, I do have “the sight”, but perhaps not quite as clearly as she does.

That’s a very good question.

When even Bob Barr — who himself was once a US Attorney — is complaining about the authoritarianism of the Bush Junta, you think that maybe there might be some good Republicans who haven’t totally put party over country. (James Comey and Pat Fitzgerald would be two others — assuming that both are indeed Republicans; I’ve heard conflicting reports thereon.)

A National Day of Truth. C’mon all you whistleblowers out there, you know how to do it…just put your lips together and blow.

Okay, Darryl Issa seems to be a mule. I’ve been wondering why all of a sudden he has been all over the place. He’s out there spouting all kinds of crappola, but he will end up as another “fall guy”. What a fool.

Oh, I do hope you are right. Anything–anything!–to get of that idiot.

And I have long thought, without a smidgeon of proof, that a thorough investigation of everyone associated with the Duke Cunningham case would lead to the never-lovely Duncan Hunter. Those two are pea-brains in a pod.

I do find the inconsistency between Novak’s claim of “no partisan gunslinger” in his article in 2003 yet his later explanation for how Armitage told him contradicts that an interesting point to consider. What I have never fully understood is why Novak went along with this despite the fact that he had opposed the war and was already publicly less than thrilled about some aspects of Bushco’s foreign policy. There are murky motivations underlying much of this matter and I doubt we will ever have the full story. I will be content if the main shape and key/significant details manage to emerge and be accepted as the truth by all but the fringe die-hards of any fallen focus of a cult of personality.

So why was Libby, lawyer not smart enough or honest enough to claim the same. Perhaps Armitage new he could not lie his way out of it, with Novak spilling the beans, and Libby thought otherwise, or he is the fall guy, waiting to be pardoned, and rewarded with a cushy corporate job?

Because Libby’s running out the clock. He has millions of dollars of glorified hush money from BushCo, which he is using to mount appeals to keep him out of prison until after November of 2008, at which point Bush can safely pardon him without worrying that the 70-odd-percent of Americans who DON’T want Libby pardoned will take it out on the GOP at the ballot box.

That’s why the Democrats have been pressuring Bush to promise that he won’t pardon Libby. It’s a windfall for the Democrats.

As far as Toensing goes, IANL, it seems she is free to argue a legal point no matter how febble and it does not matter it you see thru it? Further if she can produce something that shows that the intent was for “serve” to mean “stationed” or “reside” she suddenly becomes credible. Of course the maddening thing is she is representing herself as an expert on the law when it actually appears she is an advocate for the GOP. On corn, I think she can argue that his speculating Plame was NOC, was her point as lame as that is, but I am less sure on that point, and IANL so maybe I should be putting this as a question instead of a statement.

On Libby I always have made the Al Capone analogy myself, still it seems that everyone but Libby was smart enough to say they did not know she was covert and instead he lied. Some say he lied on purpose to become a fall guy? Still I think I read he asks another white house attorney how one would know someone was covert? Realizing he was in trouble he starting lying, when he actually did not know she was covert?

However Armitage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..d_Armitage

Novak disputes Armitage’s claim that the disclosure was “inadvertent.” In a column titled The real story behind the Armitage story, Novak states: “First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘thought’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column . . . he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson’s role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column — implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information.” Novak also disputes Armitage’s claim that he learned he was Novak’s “primary source” (Novak’s phrase) only after reading Novak’s October 1 column: “I believed [Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage’s close friend and political adviser] contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27–28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak.

If we believe Novak over Armitage it is hard to understand the statement by Novak that Armitage was not a partison gunslinger. And the fact he disclosed it to Woodward also seems that it was not disclosed by mistake, or that he did not expect it to be published. Still I suppose Armitage could still claim he did not know she was covert?

So why was Libby, lawyer not smart enough or honest enough to claim the same. Perhaps Armitage new he could not lie his way out of it, with Novak spilling the beans, and Libby thought otherwise, or he is the fall guy, waiting to be pardoned, and rewarded with a cushy corporate job?

TeddySanFran @ 178

Danforth is too honest.

To be nominated, or to accept the nomination?

I actually got a chance to hear Sen. Danforth speak/talk with him a few months back. Although I did not agree with everything he said, he seemed an honorable man, and one who was distressed over the current political climate and what the Republican party had become. BTW, did you know he was also an ordained Episcopal priest? He’s someone who takes his faith seriously, as opposed to others who use it for political expediency, which I think is a point in his favor. Perhaps not my first choice, but Bush could do worse. Unfortunately, the downside would be that by contrast he would make the rest of the Bush cabal look all the worse.