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.