Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Tatel Tale: "The Plot Against Wilson"

"The plot against Wilson."

Get used to that phrase.


It may soon be well known.

Bush critics and Bush supporters are missing the deep game being played.


There are eight pages of sealed documents that conviced all the Judges, liberal and conservative, to concur on the extra-ordinary need to compel testimony from Cooper and Miller, for the sake of the nation.

To illustrate, let's recall the O.J. trial.


The event surrounding Wilson and his wife are akin to the debate about "the bloody glove."

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."


We recall that was the vulgar rhyme that the O.J. lawyer repeated to the jury.

The O.J. jury was as reluctant to convict the famous defendent as it was sympathetic to the idea of offical frame ups.

The O.J. attorney understood what the jury wanted to hear and he told them what they wanted to hear.


Ofcourse, the "bloody glove" was only one piece of evidence in a trial about a crime that occured.

There was no debate as to whether or not a crime occured.

O.J.' s lawyer wanted to focus on potential problems with the glove rather than the problematic qualities of his client, Mr. Simpson.

The revelations and subsequent vindacation of Ambassador Wilson are just one part of the evidence indicating a far larger deception about potentially huge historical crime.

"Sixteen words," delivered during a Constitutional event, like the State of the Union, are part of it.

War Powers, Seperation of Power, and much more is involved.

What If it can be proven that Congress was deceived about war?

Serious Bush supporters will have to turn on Bush, if deception can be proven.

Bush supporters do not want to believe what the are hearing and what they are about to hear.

Bush critics, along with the elite media, do not want to believe Judith Miller is wrong and the conservative prosecutor is right.

Perhaps there is a more recent trial we could use to illustrate, but that was the first and last media-circus trial we followed.


What was "the plot against Wilson?"

"The plot against Wilson," is NOT the current debate over Ambassador Wilson, whose revelations were vindicated shortly after they were made.


"The plot against Wilson," is NOT about Valerie Plame, though she and her networks were collateral damage.

"The plot against Wilson," in fact, was something that already occurred.

"The plot against Wilson," as a phrase, rolls trippingly from the tongue.


"The plot against Wilson."

What was it?

Only time and Judge Tatel will tell.

Say what?

It is the precise phrase that Judge Tatel used in a recent opinion that justified extraordinary measures of to compelling testimony from Judith Miller and Matt Cooper.

The Judges made it clear that the damage detailed in the sealed affadavit, which neither Bush critics nor Bush defenders have seen, was so massive that testimony was crucial for national security.

We are not lawyers, so you be the judge:

"Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks
so that he can write about the crime.
The greater public interest lies in
preventing the leak to begin with.
Had Cooper based his report on
leaks about the leaks--say,
from a whistleblower who revealed
the plot against Wilson--
the situation would be different.
Because in that case the source
would not have revealed
the name of a covert agent,
but instead revealed the fact
that others had done so,
the balance of news value and harm
would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower."
~Judge Tatel

Sorry Mehlman.

Judy Miller is not a "whistleblower" and neither is Karl Rove.

A whistleblower would be someone who , risking their career, exposed what the Judge called "the plot against Wilson."

Democrats should frame their arguments along that reality.

Democrats should not argue about Wilson because Wilson has already been vindicated by the court.

The White House is arguing with the Judge, more than it is with the Wilson's or the Dems.

"Criminal leaks," "plot against Wilson," "the fact," and "had" (read: it already happened) are stated in such a manner that suggests certain conclusion, based on sealed documents and given testimony, have already been made.

According to Judge Tatel, a crime did occur.

That fact is not debated, just as it was not debated with the O.J. trial.

If you read the opinion, which we linked to above, you may notice another familiar name.

Judge Sentelle was the man the Clintonians used to hate when he writing opinions in support of Ken Starr's investigation.

Will the right wing now turn on him, like they recently did to Isikoff?

Only time will tell.

Til then, read Tatel's tale.

10 Comments:

At 6:11 AM, Blogger Anna, Fair and True said...

I don't know too much, or anything really, about this case, but I just wanted to put my mark on your blog since you've been commenting on mine! :)

 
At 8:46 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Thanks Anna- we came accross your blog, from England Expects, which we spotted from Ignoble Experiment. Two degrees, two continents. Our comment escapes us now- so we'll go check.

 
At 1:44 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Lawrence O'Donnell corrects Blankley by making the obvious point that Valeri Plame had to be an operative or else there would be no case:

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL:
Here’s what I think is definitive on this question. Patrick Fitzgerald has represented to the courts that he is pursuing a serious, national security, criminal violation. It seems to me in this grand jury, witness number one -- and Tony you’ve been a prosecutor, you know how they assemble cases -- witness number one would have been a CIA administrator who comes in and testifies about how Valerie Plame does indeed fit the law’s requirements. Because if witness number one doesn’t do that successfully for the prosecutor, there is absolutely no reason to call witness number two, because there is no crime to investigate.

Tony?


TONY BLANKLEY:
Yeah--well--I mean--that’s one way to approach it......

 
At 6:29 PM, Blogger the serrach said...

my concern in this, being that i hoping for anything that exposes the duplicty of this sanctimonious administration, is that there will be a scapgoat. i've heard ari fleisher's name mentioned more than once in this regard.

as much i as loathed the man (ari) when he was in the game, he's a step removed now and can be easily disavowed. scooter too for that matter cus most people have no idea who he is.

but rove... now that's delish. since you are clearly following this more closely than i, any thoughts?

 
At 6:49 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Welcome and thanks for commenting.

Any ideas? Not really. Just what's in the post.

It's all speculation because the serious evidence is sealed- everything people are talking about is only about what is public.

It could be many things, or not- we'll see. It's possible that much will remain secret if there are no indictments.

The key question- is what happened and why?

At least six journalists were contacted, but we only hear about three.

This investigation is covering much more than the Rove leak allegations.

"The plot against Wilson," is the phrase the Judge used- that implies a lot.

We'll see.

On a personal level- we don't wish anyone ill- we just want to know the truth and why they wanted to wish Wilson ill.

It could be that this case is the Rosetta Stone for the whole modus. Or not.

The prosecutor is a Republican who has proven to be willing to investigate Republicans, so we assume he will follow the law and see where things lead.

The recent email leaked by the Rove camp seems classic- will Bush investigate that leak? It makes Rove seem like the recipient of a leak, rather than a purveyor.

Everything is backwards- as if Cooper was in power and Rove is the reporter.

That suggests a way of operating.

 
At 8:33 PM, Blogger John said...

"Everything is backwards...That suggests a way of operating."

Projection.

 
At 1:42 AM, Blogger Andros said...

If this were a Democratic administration, Congressional hearings would be already underway! In this one-party government, the bar is set at the bare minimum, that is, "not breaking the law." [not that laws weren't broken]. Bush and his cohorts don't seem to care about what's right & wrong.

Anyway, I wish Rove stays around a while longer.... he's a sinker for Bush.

And, Rover has been a carpet pisser several times already! He's only loyal to his master and will bite anyone, including Repubs who may challenge his master. For a dog, he's a natural!

Leaker

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Backwards? LOL

It's a proven fact- read the legal opinion. It's in the text.

Don't blame the victim.

 
At 10:03 PM, Blogger Tuli said...

This post is terrific. I can’t wait to read the entire decision. You are right, there is more going on here than is readily accessible.

Keep up the good work.

Tuli

 
At 4:25 AM, Blogger Bradley Egel said...

This was very informative! As usual when I visit Gotham City!

Karl Rove has been squeezing out of "difficult" and sometimes legally agregious situations for about 30 years now :) We shall see how this one shakes down.

Bradley
The Egel Nest

 

Post a Comment

<< Home