Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Official A"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
astroBspacedog Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:13 PM
Original message
"Official A"?
I hope this is not a dupe because I'm sure the same thought is on many minds here.
If "Official A" discussed Novak's column before it was published, why hasn't "Official A" been indicted?
Is this not a crime? This has had me baffled since I read the indictment on Friday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good question, and
yes, it is a crime. Perhaps, he has been indicted and the indictments are sealed...we'll know when we know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wookie294 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. Official A didn't know Plame was undercover, so no crime in outing her
It would be a crime if Official A knew Plame was undercover. So far, Fitz is saying the people in the White House didn't know she was undercover, so no crime was committed in outing her. If that's how he ends this case, then he is corrupt, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Everything "credible" I have read or heard says "Official A" is legalspeak
for somebody who is still in legal jeopardy. . .

That is, others in the indictment are identified by title so you can easily figure out who they are. The non-RW talking head I saw said that this kind of designation "official A" means that this person is still in legal jeopardy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. If you look at Fitzgerald's Chicago cases, that was how he referred to Gov
Ryan, well before he indicted him: State Official A.

Fitzgerald is determined to be FAIR. And that includes not smearing anyone, even if they are guilty as hell, with innuendo. He is a "shit or get off the pot" kinda guy.

Of course, when he decides to shit out the Rove indictment, the pot could well overflow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. If no Crime was committed by "Official A" they why isn't he/she named
Others were named in the indictment, could it be that this person is still under investigation and may well be indicted for a crime in the future?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. Where did "Fitz" say that exactly? Can you prove your allegations?
On the contrary, this is what I've read:

Another warning sign for Rove was in the phrasing of Friday's indictment of Libby. Fitzgerald referred to Rove in those charging papers as a senior White House official and dubbed him "Official A." In prosecutorial parlance, this kind of awkward pseudonym is often used for individuals who have not been indicted in a case but still face a significant chance of being charged. No other official in the investigation carries such an identifier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000348.html

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Oh sure, drop a wookie turd, then disappear and leave the rest of us...
...to deal with the stink.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. and since multiple sources report that Official A is Turd Blossom,
guess that the Rovester (aka Tubby McTreason as called on blogs) may need a hundred more 11th hour hail-mary passes to not be next week's indictment story himself ...

Perhaps there's another indictment in the wings for Novakula's 2nd source as well (in addition to Official A as revealed)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. The state of mind/intent defense
I suspect a few more interviews will clear that up. There's no real rush, after all. Better to do it slowly, and right, crossing t's, dotting i's, than do a sloppy job (like the WH often does).

If anyone, anyone at all, happened to be present when Rove went off on one of his "We will FUCK HIM, we will FUCK HIM LIKE HE HAS NEVER BEEN FUCKED BEFORE!" tirades, and it was IRT Wilson, he is hosed. And I suspect he talked to someone--people like him are so damn arrogant, and feel so important, that they just HAVE to let others know what big cheeses they are.

Fitzgerald is still investigating...we shall see what develops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. wasnt re wilson, was re republican political operative
http://www.ronsuskind.com/newsite/articles/archives/000032.html

<snip>

Inside, Rove was talking to an aide about some political stratagem in some state that had gone awry and a political operative who had displeased him. I paid it no mind and reviewed a jotted list of questions I hoped to ask. But after a moment, it was like ignoring a tornado flinging parked cars. "We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!" As a reporter, you get around—curse words, anger, passionate intensity are not notable events—but the ferocity, the bellicosity, the violent imputations were, well, shocking. This went on without a break for a minute or two. Then the aide slipped out looking a bit ashen, and Rove, his face ruddy from the exertions of the past few moments, looked at me and smiled a gentle, Clarence-the-Angel smile. "Come on in." And I did. And we had the most amiable chat for a half hour. I asked a variety of questions about his relationship with Karen Hughes. Were there ever tensions between him and Karen? Nope. "Oh, we’re both strong-willed people, but we work well together." I mentioned a few disputes others had told me of. He dismissed them all. Didn’t they sort of bury the hatchet after September 11? Nope — no hatchet to bury. As the president’s two most powerful aides, did they ever disagree? "Not often." Any examples? Nope. He couldn’t be nicer, mind you. Finally, I asked if one of his role models was Mark Hanna, the visionary political guru to President William McKinley who helped reshape Republicans into the party of inclusion and ushered in decades of electoral victory at the turn of the twentieth century. Rove’s a student of McKinley and Hanna. He has talked extensively in the past about lessons he’s learned from this duo’s response to challenges of their era. "No, this era is nothing like McKinley’s. I’m not at all like Hanna. Never wanted to be."

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I know that--that is why I said they need to find someone who will
testify to the same sort of outburst IN THE CONTEXT of Wilson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. got it
but it is always interesting to re-read that paragraph, isnt it.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. It is helpful, when trying to truly divine Rove's "State of Mind"
...in a broad context, at any rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. I'm thinking Fitz may want Rover to give him Libby as part of an
orchestrated conspiracy. Rather than Libby the lone gunman protecting his boss from Wilson's claims that he sent him, etc.

Rove's indictmenthood is pending (hence reference to "A"). Rover's likely in a better position to make a deal than to escape indictment entirely without a deal. Among other things, Rove could give Fitz Libby, maybe Cheney.

Of course there's always the Dauphin. Teally got to wonder if Fitz is trying to learn who were those Daily News sources who say Bush was "furious" with Rove when at that time he was publicly claiming and continued to claim that he knew nothing about no steekin' leaks. Maybe as they say, it was "common knowledge" in the WH that the was a conspiracy to smear Wilson and out Plame. Line 'em up and reel 'em in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. That is an interesting scenario you pose, there
Rover has a much to lose as Libby. Wife, kids, the happy home, and whatnot.

I sure wish I could be a fly on the wall in some of these corridors of power and justice--of course, with my luck, someone would grab a newspaper and flatten me with it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
astroBspacedog Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Who's F***ing Who?
Edited on Sun Oct-30-05 08:56 PM by astroBspacedog
Thanks everybody, after reading the ten comments of this post I've come to my own analogy. For the last two years I've actually found it hard to believe that even this administration is stupid enough to pull off a stunt like this without an attempt to cover their fanny's. Maybe they teamed up, had a conference where Rove said, " Let's fuck them, -- let's fuck them like they've never been fucked before. We should reveal to the public that Wilsons wife sent him to Niger in order to discredit The President because they are both anti- American, freedom hating, terrorist lovers".
Cheney replied, -- " Karl,-- go fuck yourself !! We can all go to jail for this, -- she's classified"!
Karl responded, -- " Not if we never admit that we knew she is classified".
So Libby, not being as good of a liar as the rest of the bunch, fucked himself in his testimony, --- accidentally.
Throughout this maneuver, Dick "go fuck yourself" Cheney has fucked himself (accidentally) for deciding to agree with Karl.
If the chimp has to testify, whether in court of in front of Congress, I'm sure he will fuck everybody including himself because we all know that spontaneous, logical comments are not his specialty.
Then there is Karl "we will fuck him" Rove who got fucked by everybody, including himself for coming up with this stupid idea in the first place.

I hope so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. Libby is the first known source. It took Fitz two years to get
through all the stonewalling. He's looking for more.

But if Libby is the first known source, Rove can say he is only saying what had been previously leaked.

No I want something more for Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. Libby obstructed the process to determine whether it was a crime
That's why the Vice President's chief of staff is going to federal prison for a number of years.

Whether it was a crime or not could not be determined precisely because attempts by duly appointed federal law enforcement officials were obstructed when a high official in the Vice Presidents office lied repeatedly to federal law enforcement, lied repeatedly to a duly empanelled grand jury and obstructed the ability of federal prosecutors to determined the truth of the matter.

So, you cannot say it was NOT a crime, and you cannot say it WAS a crime. Why can't either statement be made? Because of the felonious conduct of the Vice President's chief of staff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlsmith1963 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. Here is What I Think...
...with the idea that "A" is Rove.

I think that Fitz wasn't really going to indict anyone yet (because he wasn't quite ready), but since Libby lied, he went ahead & indicted Libby to send Bush & the others a message: don't screw with me. Remember how angry he seemed at the press conference? He was really trashing Libby & also used that baseball analogy, like Libby had gotten in the way of what he was trying to do. So I think Libby wasn't the real target. Rove was. I think he will still indict Rove, but he was really annoyed with Libby.

Tammy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
astroBspacedog Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Hopefully You're Correct.
If so, maybe Fritz will not accept a plea bargain, then bury the whole issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes....Fitz went out on a limb on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
21. McClellan said repeatedly today " This is still an ongoing investigation."
They know it and Fitzgerald knows it.

Rove is spinning hard to reporters that he is off the hook because he's desperate to retain power over his media jackels in order to function at the White House.

But McClellan made it clear that the White House considers the investigation as "ongoing".

There's no joy in Mudville.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC